Optimised dosage of diaminophenothiazines in populations

ABSTRACT

The invention provides novel dosing regimens for Leuco-Methylthioninium (LMT) compounds which maximise the proportion of subjects in which the MT concentration will exceed concentrations in which therapeutic efficacy in relation to treatment of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer&#39;s disease and rontotemporal dementias can be achieved, while maintaining a desirable clinical profile. Also provided are LMT-containing dosage units and other compositions.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This Application is a Continuation application of U.S. application Ser.No. 17/262,902, filed Jan. 25, 2021, which is a National Stage filingunder 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Patent Application Serial No.PCT/EP2019/069428, filed Jul. 18, 2019, which claims priority to GreatBritain Application No. 1812193.9, filed Jul. 26, 2018, and GreatBritain Application No. 1909458.0, filed Jul. 1, 2019. The contents ofthese applications are incorporated herein by reference in theirentirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates generally to optimised dosing regimens ofdiaminophenothiazines in the treatment or prophylaxis ofneurodegenerative disorders, particularly within populations ofindividuals having different pharmacokinetic responses.

BACKGROUND ART

Aberrant protein aggregation is believed to be a proximal cause ofnumerous disease states, which may be manifested as neurodegeneration,clinical dementia, and other pathological symptoms.

In general, the aberrant protein aggregation is that which arises froman induced conformational polymerisation interaction, i.e., one in whicha conformational change of the protein, or in a fragment thereof, givesrise to templated binding and aggregation of further (precursor) proteinmolecules in a self-propagating manner.

Once nucleation is initiated, an aggregation cascade may ensue whichinvolves the induced conformational polymerisation of further proteinmolecules, leading to the formation of toxic product fragments inaggregates which are substantially resistant to further proteolysis.

For example certain conditions of dementia may be characterised by aprogressive accumulation of intracellular and/or extracellular depositsof proteinaceous structures such as β-amyloid plaques andneurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the brains of affected patients. Theappearance of these lesions largely correlates with pathologicalneurofibrillary degeneration and brain atrophy, as well as withcognitive impairment (see, e.g., Mukaetova-Ladinska et al., 2000).

Current approved treatments for Alzheimer's disease includeacetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEls) and the N-methyl-D-aspartatereceptor antagonist memantine. These are symptomatic and do not addressthe underlying disease pathology. Therapies targeting the amyloidpathology have so far proved unsuccessful in late stage clinical trials(Geerts et al., 2013; Mullane and Williams, 2013). According to a recentLancet Neurology Commission, “an effective treatment for AD is perhapsthe greatest unmet medical need facing modern medicine”, (Winblad etal., 2016) not least because the global economic cost of dementia isestimated to be $818 billion, or 0.65% of global gross domestic product(Alzheimer's Disease International, 2015).

NFTs (the pathology discovered by Alois Alzheimer, (Alzheimer, 1907))are made up of paired helical filaments (PHFs), composed predominantlyof a 12-kDa repeat-domain fragment of the microtubule-associated proteintau (Wischik et al., 1985; Wischik et al., 1988a,b). Numerous studieshave confirmed a quantitative link for the spread of neurofibrillarytangle pathology and the quantity of aggregated tau with both the extentof clinical dementia and functional molecular imaging deficits inAlzheimer's disease (Arriagada et al., 1992; Brier et al., 2016;Giannakopoulos et al., 2003; Josephs et al., 2003; Maruyama et al.,2013). Since pathological aggregation of tau protein begins at least 20years prior to any of the clinical manifestations (Braak and delTredici, 2013), targeting this pathology offers a rational approach toboth treatment and prevention of AD and related tau aggregationdisorders (Huang and Mucke, 2012; Wischik et al., 2014; Wischik et al.,2010).

The tau fragment originally identified as an intrinsic structuralconstituent of the PHF core has prion-like properties in vitro in thatit captures normal tau protein with very high affinity (Lai et al.,2016) and converts it to a proteolytically stable replicate of itself(Wischik et al., 1996; Harrington et al., 2015) in a process which isself-propagating and autocatalytic. Phosphorylation of tau is inhibitoryto its aggregation (Lai et al., 2016) and is unlikely to drive thecascade (Mukaetova-Ladinska et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 1999;Wischik et al., 1995). Direct inhibition of tau aggregation represents aplausible point for therapeutic intervention.

Methylthioninium (MT) acts as a tau aggregation inhibitor (TAI) in vitro(Wischik et al., 1996; Harrington et al., 2015), dissolves PHFs fromAlzheimer's disease brain tissue, (Wischik et al., 1996) and reduces taupathology and associated behavioural deficits in transgenic mouse taumodels at brain concentrations consistent with human oral dosing (Meliset al., 2015; Baddeley et al., 2015).

MT has also been shown to inhibit other disease-associated proteinaggregation (see e.g. WO2007/110629 and references therein).

MT is a redox molecule and, depending on environmental conditions (e.g.,pH, oxygen, reducing agents), exists in equilibrium between a reduced[leucomethylthioninium (LMT)] and oxidized form (MT⁺).

WO96/30766 describes such MT-containing compounds for use in thetreatment and prophylaxis of various diseases, including AD and LewyBody Disease. One example compound was methylthioninium chloride (“MTC”)commonly known as methylene blue, which is the chloride salt of theoxidized form of methylthioninium (MT) i.e. MT⁺.

WO96/30766 describes, in the case of oral administration, a daily dosageof about 50 mg to about 700 mg, preferably about 150 mg to about 300 mg,divided in preferably 1-3 unit doses.

WO2007/110630 discloses certain specific diaminophenothiazine compoundsrelated to MTC, including (so-called) ETC, DEMTC, DMETC, DEETC, MTZ,ETZ, MTI, MTILHI, ETI, ETLHI, MTN, and ETN, which are useful as drugs,for example in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other diseasessuch as Frontotemporal dementia (FTD).

WO2007/110630 describes dosage units comprising 20 to 300 mg of3,7-diaminophenothiazine (DAPTZ) compounds described therein e.g. 30 to200 mg, for example 30 mg, 60 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg. A suitabledose of the DAPTZ compound is suggested in the range of about 100 ng toabout 25 mg (more typically about 1 μg to about 10 mg) per kilogram bodyweight of the subject per day e.g. 100 mg, 3 times daily, 150 mg, 2times daily, 200 mg, 2 times daily. A dosage of 50 mg 3 or 4 times dailyis also discussed.

A preliminary pharmacokinetic model for methylene blue, based on studiesof urinary excretion data sets in humans, dogs and rats, was proposed byDiSanto and Wagner, J Pharm Sci 1972, 61:1086-1090 and 1972,61:1090-1094 and Moody et al., Biol Psych 1989, 26: 847-858.

Peter et al. (2000) Eur J Clin Pharmacol 56: 247-250 provided a modelwhich integrated blood level data, which contradicted the earlier datafrom DiSanto and Wagner as regards terminal elimination half-life.

May et al. (Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, 2004, Vol. 286, pp. C1390-C1398)showed that human erythrocytes sequentially reduce and take up MTC i.e.that MTC itself is not taken up by the cells but rather that it is thereduced from of MT that crosses the cell membrane. They also showed thatthe rate of uptake is enzyme dependent; and that both oxidised andreduced MT are concentrated in cells (reduced MT re-equilibrates onceinside the cell to form oxidised MT).

Based on these and other disclosures, it is believed that orallyadministered MTC and similar drugs are taken up in the gut and enter thebloodstream, while unabsorbed drug percolates down the alimentary canal,to the distal gut. One important undesired side-effect is the effect ofthe unabsorbed drug in the distal gut, for example, sensitisation of thedistal gut and/or antimicrobial effects of the unabsorbed drug on florain the distal gut, both leading to diarrhoea.

MTC was tested clinically in a phase 2 study (Wischik et al., 2015).Although the minimum safe and effective dose was identified as 138mg/day, a higher dose of 218 mg/day had limited efficacy due toabsorption limitations, most likely due to the need for the MT+ to bereduced to the leuco-MT (LMT) form to permit efficient absorption bypassive diffusion.

WO2009/044127 disclosed the results of a phase 2 clinical trial, whichindicated that MTC had two systemic pharmacological actions: cognitiveeffects and haematological effects, but that these actions wereseparable. Specifically the cognitive effects did not show a monotonicdose-response relationship, whereas the haematological effects did. Itwas proposed that two distinct species were responsible for the twotypes of pharmacological activity: MTC absorbed as the uncharged LMTform being responsible for the beneficial cognitive activity, and MTCabsorbed as an oxidised dimeric species being responsible for theoxidation of haemoglobin. WO2009/044127 described how dosage forms couldbe used to maximise the bioavailability of the therapeutically active(cognitively effective) species whether dosing with oxidised orleuco-DAPTZ compounds.

Since it is the reduced form of MT that is taken up by cells, it hasbeen proposed to administer a reduced form to patients. This may alsoreduce reliance on the rate-limiting step of enzymatic reduction.

MTC, a phenothiazin-5-ium salt, may be considered to be an “oxidizedform” in relation to the corresponding 10H-phenothiazine compound,N,N,N′,N′-tetramethyl-1 OH-phenothiazine-3,7-diamine, which may beconsidered to be a “reduced form”:

The “reduced form” (or “leuco form”) is known to be unstable and can bereadily and rapidly oxidized to give the corresponding “oxidized” form.

WO 02/055720 discloses the use of reduced forms of certaindiaminophenothiazines for the treatment of protein aggregating diseases,primarily tauopathies. Based on in vitro activity for the reduced formsof diaminophenothiazines therein, a suggested daily dosage was 3.2-3.5mg/kg, and dosages of 20 mg t.d.s., 50 mg t.d.s. or 100 mg t.d.s.,combined with 2× mg ratio of ascorbic acid in such a manner as toachieve more than 90% reduction prior to ingestion were also described.

WO2007/110627 disclosed certain 3,7-diamino-10H-phenothiazinium salts,effective as drugs or pro-drugs for the treatment of diseases includingAlzheimer's disease and other diseases such as Frontotemporal dementia(FTD). These compounds are also in the “reduced” or “leuco” form whenconsidered in respect of MTC. These leucomethylthioninium compounds werereferred to as “LMTX” salts, and included the following salts:

WO2012/107706 described other LMTX salts having superior properties tothe LMTX salts listed above, including leuco-methylthioniniumbis(hydromethanesulfonate) (LMTM):

Specifically LMTM retains TAI activity in vitro and in vivo (Harringtonet al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015) has superior pharmaceutic propertiesin terms of solubility and pKa, and is not subject to the absorptionlimitations of the MT⁺ form (Baddeley et al., 2015).

WO2007/110627 and WO2012/107706 describes dosage units comprising 20 to300 mg of the DAPTZ compounds described therein e.g. 30 to 200 mg, forexample 30 mg, 60 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg. A suitable dose of theDAPTZ compound is suggested in the range of about 100 ng to about 25 mg(more typically about 1 μg to about 10 mg) per kilogram body weight ofthe subject per day e.g. 100 mg, 3 times daily, 150 mg, 2 times daily,200 mg, 2 times daily.

WO2018/019823 describes novel regimens for treatment ofneurodegenerative disorders utilising methylthioninium (MT)-containingcompounds. Briefly, these regimens identified two key factors. The firstwas in relation to the dosage of MT compounds, and the second was theirinteraction with symptomatic treatments based on modulation ofacetylcholinesterase levels.

In the analysis described in WO2018/019823, low doses of MT compounds(for example 4 mg b.i.d) showed therapeutic benefits when monotherapywas compared against add-on. The efficacy profiles were similar in mildand moderate subjects for most of the measured outcomes.

Furthermore, treatment benefit in AD (according to the trial criteria)was restricted to patients taking LMTM as monotherapy. By contrast, thedecline seen at corresponding doses in patients taking LMTM incombination with AD-labelled treatments (acetylcholinesterase inhibitors[AChEls] and\or memantine), who were the majority, was indistinguishableon all parameters from that seen in the control arm.

The potential for LMT compounds to be active at the low dose, and theapparent lack of a dose-response, are discussed in WO2018/019823 and itis hypothesised that there may be a critical threshold for activity atthe tau aggregation inhibitor target, and that the effect of higherdoses may plateau or may even become negative at brain concentrationsabove 1 μM (Melis, 2015). Based on these analyses, and given that lowerdoses (4 mg twice a day) had a better overall clinical profile than thehigh dose (100 mg twice a day), WO2018/019823 teaches methods oftreatment of neurodegenerative disorders of protein aggregation whichcomprise oral administration of MT-containing compounds, wherein saidadministration provides a total of between 0.5 and 20 mg of MT to thesubject per day, optionally as a single dose or split into 2 or moredoses.

Other publications using “low dose” or “low dosage” in relation toMT-containing compounds are described in WO2018/019823. For example:

Telch, Michael J., et al. “Effects of post-session administration ofmethylene blue on fear extinction and contextual memory in adults withclaustrophobia.” American Journal of Psychiatry 171.10 (2014):1091-1098: this publication refers to the use of “low-dose methyleneblue” on retention of fear extinction and contextual memory followingfear extinction training. The paper reports that “Methylene blue is adiamino phenothiazine drug that at low doses (0.5-4 mg/kg) hasneurometabolic-enhancing properties. The dosages used in the publicationwere 260 mg/day for adult participants, corresponding to a 4 mg/kg dose.

Gonzalez-Lima F and Auchter A (2015) “Protection againstneurodegeneration with low-dose methylene blue and near-infrared light”.Front. Cell. Neurosci. 9:179. doi: 10.3389/fnce1.2015.00179: thispublication discusses the cellular mechanisms mediating theneuroprotective effects of low doses of methylene blue and near-infraredlight. It refers to earlier work citing 0.5-4 mg/kg of methylene blue assafe and effective.

Alda, Martin, et al. “Methylene blue treatment for residual symptoms ofbipolar disorder: randomised crossover study.” The British Journal ofPsychiatry (2016): doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.173930: this publicationdescribed the use of a 15 mg “low dose” of methylene blue as a placeboin a 6 month trial. The “active dose” was 195 mg. In each case the dosewas split three times daily.

Rodriguez, Pavel, et al. “Multimodal Randomized Functional MR Imaging ofthe Effects of Methylene Blue in the Human Brain.” Radiology (2016):152893: this publication also refers to the ‘known’ pharmacokinetic andside effects of “low-dose” (0.5-4.0 mg/kg) methylene blue, which arecontrasted with the effects of dosages greater than 10 mg/kg. Thedosages used in the publication were 280 mg/day for adult participants,approximating to a 4 mg/kg dose.

Naylor et al. (1986) “A two-year double-blind crossover trial of theprophylactic effect of methylene blue in manic-depressive psychosis”.Biol. Psychiatry 21:915-920 and Naylor et al. (1987) A controlled trialof methylene blue in severe depressive psychosis. Biol. Psychiatry22:657-659: these studies used 15 mg/day methylene, nominally as aplacebo vs. a treatment of 300 mg/day methylene blue. However, in thelatter paper the authors proposed that the placebo dosage may act as anantidepressant.

As discussed above, because of their activity in respect of tauaggregation and TDP-43 aggregation, MT-based compounds have beensuggested for the treatment of FTD (see WO2007/110630; WO2007/110627;WO2009/044127; WO2012/107706, all described supra).

WO2018/041739 describes the results of a phase 3 clinical trialinvestigating the treatment of Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) diseaseusing LMTM.

The results indicated that even a relatively low dose of the MT compound(which was used in the trial as a control) may show benefit in FTD, ascompared to the cognitive decline seen in historical controls.

Furthermore, unexpectedly, the results indicated strong interactioneffects when MT is co-medicated with AD treatments which modify synapticneurotransmission in the brain. There appeared significant cognitivebenefits in FTD patients taking MT in combination with such ADtreatments (e.g. acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and/or memantine)compared to MT alone. WO2018/041739 further describes how MT compoundscan be combined with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and/or memantinewithout apparent incompatibility.

The insights provided in WO2018/019823 and WO2018/041739 provide animportant contribution to the art in relation to the minimum dosing ofMT compounds to achieve cognitive benefit in subjects suffering from, orat risk of, neurodegenerative disorders such as AD and FTD.

Nevertheless it is well known that there is inter-individual variabilitybetween subjects in respect of how a given dosage of a drug willtranslate into the concentration of the drug in the subject's bodyfluids. It is advantageous that any dosing regimen which is to beapplied to populations of such subjects can as far as possible take suchvariability into account, in order to ensure maximal therapeutic benefitfor all subjects, without the need for personalised regimes, and whilenevertheless maintaining a desirable clinical profile.

DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION

The present inventors have devised a novel pharmacokinetic (PK) modelfor dosing MT compounds in patient populations. This versatile model wasderived from a Phase 1 study in elderly volunteers, and is described inthe Examples hereinafter.

The novel population PK model was then used to estimate Cmax of parentMT in patients who received LMTM in the two phase 3 trials of AD studiesdescribed in WO2018/019823 (Studies “005” and “015”, for treatment ofmild, or mild to moderate, AD patients respectively). Once the Cmax wasestimated in each of the subjects, a distribution of Cmax estimates foreach of the treated population could be derived.

As expected, there was substantial variability in the MT Cmax valuesacross the population for the given low dosage. Analysis of thisdistribution confirmed the findings in WO2018/019823 that low dosages (4mg MT bid) were efficacious (as measured, for example, by reduceddecline on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale(ADAS-cog). It further confirmed that monotherapy gave a substantialbenefit by this criterion compared to add-on therapy with AChEls and\ormemantine (with the mean benefit of between monotherapy and add-on being˜4 ADAS-cog units over 65 weeks)(see FIG. 3 a ).

However, unexpectedly in view of the published literature whichdescribed a lack of recognisable dose response, the novel analysisrevealed that there exists a concentration response within the low dosetreated population. This can be shown for patients receiving the 8mg/day using a sigmoid E_(max)), analysis for ADAS-cog₁₁ decline over 65weeks in patients pooled from Studies 015 and 005 (FIG. 12 ).

Based on a median Cmax threshold split of the population, the group ofindividuals with “high” estimated Cmax showed an improvement of around˜2 to 3 ADAS-cog units compared to the group of individuals with “low”estimated Cmax (see FIG. 3 a ).

However based on splitting of patients according to the threshold of0.373 ng/ml, that encompasses the 35% of patients with the lowestvalues, the treatment difference in patients receiving the 8 mg/day doseis ˜3.4 ADAS-cog units (see FIG. 14 ).

These insights suggest that it is advantageous to adopt a dosing regimenwhich both maximises the proportion of subjects in which the MTconcentration will exceed the C_(max) or C_(ave) threshold, and alsomaximises the expected therapeutic efficacy of LMTM whether it is takenalone or in combination with (or at least preceded by) symptomatictreatments, while nevertheless maintaining a relatively low dose so asto maintain a desirable clinical profile in relation to being welltolerated with minimal side-effects.

The overall biphasic concentration-response for LMTM shown in FIG. 17supports the proposition that the minimum dose which achieves all theseobjectives is at least 20 mg/day, and doses in the range 20-40 mg/day,or 20-60 mg/day would be expected to maximise the therapeutic benefit,although good efficacy, particularly in AD patients not pre-treated withsymptomatic treatments, can still be seen at dosages of 100 mg or more.

The novel population PK model was additionally used to estimate Cmax ofparent MT in patients who received different dosages of LMTM bid in thephase 3 clinical trial investigating the treatment of bvFTD described inWO2018/041739.

These results confirmed the concentration-response relationship for lowdose monotherapy for clinical benefit measured by change over 52 weekson the cognitive scale (ACE-R) and on the functional scale (FAQ) similarto that seen in AD. There is a similar concentration-responserelationship for measures of progression of brain atrophy by MRI(frontotemporal volume, lateral ventricular volume, whole brain volume).This is shown in FIG. 18 .

As can be seen comparing the corresponding expanded Hill equation plotsof AD and bvFTD (FIG. 17 and FIG. 20 ), the biphasic nature of theconcentration-response relationship is more evident in bvFTD. Thisimplies that the optimum dosing range to achieve maximum treatmentbenefit in bvFTD is somewhat narrower in bvFTD, namely 20-40 mg/day, orless preferably 20-60 mg/day.

As previously seen in in WO2018/041739, there is an additional benefitfrom combination with symptomatic treatments, which can particularly beseen in patients with plasma levels below the population mean forC_(max,ss).

In the light of the results described herein, it can be seen that thereare at least two distinct benefits to use the minimal dose of MTcompound which maximises the benefit treatment effect. Firstly certainrare adverse events or side effects associated with MT occur in adose-related fashion. Hence avoiding higher dosages than are necessaryis clearly desirable in order to maintain an optimal clinical profile.Secondly, there is evidence of an inverse dose-response relationship forcertain therapeutic criteria at high doses: thus benefit may actually beattenuated at high doses.

Overall these novel findings indicate that there is benefit in usingslightly higher “low dose” LMT treatments than had previously beenassumed, and further indicate that LMT treatments can, in some contexts,be advantageously used as add-on to symptomatic treatments, whichincreases the versatility of MT-based therapeutic regimes.

Further analysis by the inventors indicated that dosing above 20 mg MT(for example administered as LMTM) will achieve a Cmax above themedian-derived threshold value in 90 to 100% of subjects (see FIG. 5 ),with the precise percentage being dependent on the number of split dosesbeing employed.

In respect of AD treatments, such treatments would preferably be amonotherapy, or at least introduced either prior to or followingcessation of the currently available AD treatments AChEls and memantine.However, importantly, and as explained above, the analysis describedherein indicates that even when using MT treatments as an add-ontherapy, there can be benefit (of 2 ADAS-cog units, or more) in dosingto achieve a Cmax above the threshold value, compared to a low Cmaxvalue.

Thus in one aspect there is disclosed a method of therapeutic treatmentof a neurodegenerative disorder, for example a neurodegenerativedisorder (for example of protein aggregation, in a subject, which methodcomprises orally administering to said subject a methylthioninium(MT)-containing compound,

-   -   wherein said administration provides a total daily dose of        between 20.5 and 40, 20.5 and 50, 20.5 and 60, 20.5 and 70, 20.5        and 80, or 20.5 and 99 or 100 mg of MT to the subject per day,        optionally split into 2 or more doses,    -   wherein the MT-containing compound is a salt of

or a hydrate or solvate thereof.

The total daily MT dose may be between 20.5 or 21 and 60 mg.

The total daily dose may be about 20.5, 21, 21.5, 22, 22.5, 23, 23.5, 24mg to around any of 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60 mg.

The total daily dose may be about 20.5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 mg.

An example dosage is 20.5 or 21 to 40 mg.

A further example dosage is 22 to 35 mg.

A further example dosage is 23 to 30 mg.

The present invention concerns administering MT in the reduced (LMT)form.

The total daily dose of the compound may be administered as a split dosetwice a day or three times a day.

As explained below, when administering the MT dose split in a largernumber of doses/day it may be desired to use a smaller total amountwithin the recited range, compared to a single daily dosing, or asmaller number of doses per day.

As explained herein, in some embodiments, particularly in respect oftreatment of AD, the treatment will be a monotherapy, or at least willexclude co-medication with AChEls and memantine. In some embodimentssubjects are selected who have had not had recent prior treatment whichAChEls or memantine or other symptomatic treatments, but such treatmentis optionally started or re-started after commencement of treatment withLMT.

Thus, as explained herein, in other embodiments the treatment will be anadd-on therapy, for example co-medication with AChEls and\or memantine.Thus patients already receiving AChEls and\or memantine may benefit fromreceiving these dosages of MT compound, while patients receiving thesedosages of MT compound, may benefit from AChEls and\or memantine.

In some embodiments the treatment is part of a treatment regimen whichcomprises: (i) orally administering to said subject the MT-containingcompound for a first period of time, wherein said administrationprovides a total daily dose of between 1 and 10 mg of MT to the subjectper day, optionally 8 mg per day, optionally split into 2 or more doses;(ii) orally administering to said subject the MT-containing compound foran immediately subsequent period of time, wherein said administrationprovides a total daily dose of between 20.5 and 40 mg, 20.5 and 60, 20.5and 80 or 20.5 and 100 mg of MT to the subject per day, optionally about21 to 40, 50, or 60 mg per day, optionally split into 2 or more doses;(iii) optionally combining the treatment in (ii) with administration ofa neurotransmission modifying compound which is a modifier of theactivity of acetylcholine or glutamate neurotransmitters, such as anAChEl and\or memantine.

These different phases of the regimen will typically immediately followeach other.

Also provided herein are methods of prophylactic treatment ofneurodegenerative disorders of protein aggregation.

These aspects and embodiments will now be described in more detail:

Methylthioninium Moiety

Structure

IUPAC N3,N3,N7,N7-tetramethyl-10H- phenothiazine-3,7-diamine CompositionFormula Weight: 285.41(1) Exact Mass : 285.1299683(1) Formula :C₁₆H₁₉N₃S Composition : C 67.33% H 6.71% N 14.72% S 11.23% Synonymleucomethylthioninium (LMT)

The MT-containing compounds used in the present invention contain an MTmoiety as active ingredient in reduced form (termed “LMT”). The LMTmoiety per se described above is not stable. It will therefore beadministered as an LMT compound—for example an LMT salts.

LMT-containing compounds will generally be stabilised, for example bythe presence of one or more protic acids e.g. two protic acids.

The MT content of such salts can be readily calculated by those skilledin the art based on the molecular weight of the compound, and themolecular weight of the MT moiety. Examples of such calculations aregiven herein.

LMT Compounds

Preferably the LMT compound is an “LMTX” compound of the type describedin WO2007/110627 or WO2012/107706.

Thus the compound may be selected from compounds of the followingformula, or hydrates or solvates thereof:

Each of H_(n)A and H_(n)B (where present) are protic acids which may bethe same or different.

By “protic acid” is meant a proton (H⁺) donor in aqueous solution.Within the protic acid A⁻ or B⁻ is therefore a conjugate base. Proticacids therefore have a pH of less than 7 in water (that is theconcentration of hydronium ions is greater than 10⁻⁷ moles per litre).

In one embodiment the salt is a mixed salt that has the followingformula, where HA and HB are different mono-protic acids:

However preferably the salt is not a mixed salt, and has the followingformula:

wherein each of H_(n)X is a protic acid, such as a di-protic acid ormono-protic acid.

In one embodiment the salt has the following formula, where H₂A is adi-protic acid:

Preferably the salt has the following formula which is a bis monoproticacid:

Examples of protic acids which may be present in the LMTX compounds usedherein include: Inorganic acids: hydrohalide acids (e.g., HCl, HBr),nitric acid (HNO₃), sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) Organic acids: carbonic acid(H₂CO₃), acetic acid (CH₃COOH), methanesulfonic acid,1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid, ethansulfonic acid, Naphthalenedisulfonicacid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, Preferred acids are monoprotic acid, andthe salt is a bis(monoprotic acid) salt.

A preferred MT compound is LMTM:

1

LMT.2MsOH (LMTM) 477.6 (1.67)

Weight Factors

The anhydrous salt has a molecular weight of around 477.6. Based on amolecular weight of 285.1 for the LMT core, the weight factor for usingthis MT compound in the invention is 1.67. By “weight factor” is meantthe relative weight of the pure MT-containing compound vs. the weight ofMT which it contains.

Other weight factors can be calculated for example MT compounds herein,and the corresponding dosage ranges can be calculated therefrom.

Therefore the invention embraces a total daily dose of around 34 to 67,34 to 100, 34 to 134, or 34 to 167 mg/day of LMTM.

Other example LMTX compounds are as follows. Their molecular weight(anhydrous) and weight factor is also shown:

2

LMT.2EsOH 505.7 (1.77) 3

LMT.2TsOH 629.9 (2.20) 4

LMT.2BSA 601.8 (2.11) 5

LMT.EDSA 475.6 (1.66) 6

LMT.PDSA 489.6 (1.72) 7

LMT.NDSA 573.7 (2.01) 8

LMT.2HCl 358.33 (1.25)

The dosages described herein with respect to MT thus apply mutatismutandis for these MT-containing compounds, as adjusted for theirmolecular weight.

Accumulation Factors

As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, for a given dailydosage, more frequent dosing can lead to greater accumulation of a drug.

Therefore in certain embodiments of the claimed invention, the totaldaily dosed amount of MT compound may be relatively lower, when dosingmore frequently (e.g. twice a day [bid] or three times a day [tid]), orhigher when dosing once a day [qd].

Treatment and Prophylaxis

The term “treatment,” as used herein in the context of treating acondition, pertains generally to treatment and therapy, whether of ahuman or an animal (e.g., in veterinary applications), in which somedesired therapeutic effect is achieved, for example, the inhibition ofthe progress of the condition, and includes a reduction in the rate ofprogress, a halt in the rate of progress, regression of the condition,amelioration of the condition, and cure of the condition.

The term “therapeutically-effective amount,” as used herein, pertains tothat amount of a compound of the invention, or a material, compositionor dosage from comprising said compound, which is effective forproducing some desired therapeutic effect, commensurate with areasonable benefit/risk ratio, when administered in accordance with adesired treatment regimen. The present inventors have demonstrated thata therapeutically-effective amount of an MT compound in respect of thediseases of the invention can be much lower than was hitherto understoodin the art.

The invention also embraces treatment as a prophylactic measure. Thusthe invention also provides a method of prophylaxis of aneurodegenerative disorder (e.g. of protein aggregation) in a subject,which method comprises orally administering to said patient anMT-containing compound, wherein said administration provides a total ofbetween 20 or 21 and 40 mg, 20.5 and 60, 20.5 and 80, or 20.5 and 99 or100 mg of MT to the subject per day, optionally split into 2 or moredoses, as described above.

The term “prophylactically effective amount,” as used herein, pertainsto that amount of a compound of the invention, or a material,composition or dosage from comprising said compound, which is effectivefor producing some desired prophylactic effect, commensurate with areasonable benefit/risk ratio, when administered in accordance with adesired treatment regimen.

“Prophylaxis” in the context of the present specification should not beunderstood to circumscribe complete success i.e. complete protection orcomplete prevention. Rather prophylaxis in the present context refers toa measure which is administered in advance of detection of a symptomaticcondition with the aim of preserving health by helping to delay,mitigate or avoid that particular condition.

Combination Treatments and Monotherapy

The term “treatment” includes “combination” treatments and therapies, inwhich two or more treatments or therapies for the same neurodegenerativedisorder are combined, for example, sequentially or simultaneously.These may be symptomatic or disease modifying treatments.

The particular combination would be at the discretion of the physician.

In combination treatments, the agents (i.e., an MT compound as describedherein, plus one or more other agents) may be administeredsimultaneously or sequentially, and may be administered in individuallyvarying dose schedules and via different routes. For example, whenadministered sequentially, the agents can be administered at closelyspaced intervals (e.g., over a period of 5-10 minutes) or at longerintervals (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4 or more hours apart, or even longer periodsapart where required), the precise dosage regimen being commensuratewith the properties of the therapeutic agent(s).

An example of a combination treatment of the invention (for AD) would bean agent which is an MT-containing compound at the specified dosage incombination with an agent which is an inhibitor of the processing ofamyloid precursor protein to beta-amyloid (e.g., an inhibitor of amyloidprecursor protein processing that leads to enhanced generation ofbeta-amyloid).

The invention also allows for co-administration of either or both of: anacetylcholinesterase inhibitor or an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptorantagonist.

As described herein, in relation to combination therapies, the inventionprovides methods of enhancing the therapeutic effectiveness of a firstcompound which is an MT compound at a dose described herein for thetreatment of a neurodegenerative disorder in a subject, the methodcomprising administering to the subject a second compound, which secondcompound directly modifies synaptic neurotransmission in the brain ofthe subject (for example an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist).

The invention further provides a first compound which is an MT compoundat a dose described herein in a method of treatment of aneurodegenerative disorder in a subject in a treatment regimen whichadditionally comprises treatment with a second compound, which secondcompound directly modifies synaptic neurotransmission in the brain ofthe subject.

The invention further provides use of a compound which directly modifiessynaptic neurotransmission in the brain of a subject to enhance thetherapeutic effectiveness of an MT compound at a dose described hereinin the treatment of a neurodegenerative disorder in the subject.

The invention further provides an MT compound at a dose described hereinand a compound which directly modifies synaptic neurotransmission in thebrain for use in a combination methods of the invention.

The invention further provides a compound which directly modifiessynaptic neurotransmission in the brain of the subject for use in amethod of enhancing the therapeutic effectiveness of an MT compound at adose described herein in the treatment of a neurodegenerative disorderin a subject.

The invention further provides use of a first compound which is an MTcompound at a dose described herein in combination with a secondcompound, which second compound directly modifies synapticneurotransmission in the brain of the subject, in the manufacture of amedicament for treatment of a neurodegenerative disorder.

The invention further provides use of an MT compound at a dose describedherein in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of aneurodegenerative disorder syndrome in a subject, which treatmentfurther comprises use of a second compound, which second compounddirectly modifies synaptic neurotransmission in the brain of thesubject.

The invention further provides use of a compound which directly modifiessynaptic neurotransmission in the brain, in the manufacture of amedicament for use in the treatment of a neurodegenerative disorder in asubject, which treatment further comprises use of an MT compound at adose described herein and the compound which directly modifies synapticneurotransmission in the brain of the subject.

In other embodiments the treatment is a “monotherapy”, which is to saythat the MT-containing compound is not used in combination (within themeaning discussed above) with another active agent for treating the sameneurodegenerative disorder of protein aggregation in the subject.

Duration of Treatment

For treatment of the neurodegenerative disorder described herein, atreatment regimen based on the low dose MT compounds will preferablyextend over a sustained period of time. The particular duration would beat the discretion of the physician.

For example, the duration of treatment may be:

At least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 months, or longer.

At least 2, 3, 4, 5 years, or longer.

Between 6 and 12 months.

Between 1 and 5 years.

For prophylaxis, the treatment may be ongoing.

In all cases the treatment duration will generally be subject to adviceand review of the physician.

Desired Endpoints

The methods (dosage regimens) described herein may be utilised toachieve a specific particular therapeutic or prophylactic outcome. Thatspecific outcome may be quantified according to a scale relevant to theneurodegenerative disorder. Such scales may for example measure changeof cognitive, functional or physical criteria relevant to the disorder.The Examples herein illustrate appropriate scales by which the effect ofthe dosage regimen may be confirmed, as compared to placebo or otherreference point (e.g. different dosage regimens). These include theAlzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale—cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) usedin relation to AD, and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination—revised(ACE-R) used in relation to bvFTD.

Thus, by way of non-limiting example, in one embodiment wherein thetreatment is an AD treatment achieves (or is for achieving) a reductionin cognitive decline in the subject, which is optionally an at least 1,2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5 or 6-point reduction in decline on the 11-itemAlzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale—cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) overa 65-week period compared to a corresponding control or controlpopulation not being treated according to the invention.

In one embodiment the treatment is a bfFTD treatment which achieves (oris for achieving): (i) a reduction in cognitive decline in the subject,which is optionally an at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8-point reductionin decline on the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination—revised (ACE-R)scale over a 52-week period; or (ii) a reduction in functional declinein the subject, which is optionally an at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6point reduction in decline on the Functional Activities Questionnaire(FAQ) over a 52-week period, in each case compared to a correspondingcontrol or control population not being treated according to theinvention.

Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms

The MT compound of the invention, or pharmaceutical compositioncomprising it, is administered to a subject/patient orally.

Typically in the practice of the invention the compound will beadministered as a composition comprising the compound, and apharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent.

In some embodiments, the composition is a pharmaceutical composition(e.g., formulation, preparation, medicament) comprising a compound asdescribed herein, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent, orexcipient.

The term “pharmaceutically acceptable,” as used herein, pertains tocompounds, ingredients, materials, compositions, dosage forms, etc.,which are, within the scope of sound medical judgment, suitable for usein contact with the tissues of the subject in question (e.g., human)without excessive toxicity, irritation, allergic response, or otherproblem or complication, commensurate with a reasonable benefit/riskratio. Each carrier, diluent, excipient, etc. must also be “acceptable”in the sense of being compatible with the other ingredients of theformulation.

In some embodiments, the composition is a pharmaceutical compositioncomprising at least one compound, as described herein, together with oneor more other pharmaceutically acceptable ingredients well known tothose skilled in the art, including, but not limited to,pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, diluents, excipients, adjuvants,fillers, buffers, preservatives, anti-oxidants, lubricants, stabilisers,solubilisers, surfactants (e.g., wetting agents), masking agents,colouring agents, flavouring agents, and sweetening agents.

In some embodiments, the composition further comprises other activeagents, for example, other therapeutic or prophylactic agents.

Suitable carriers, diluents, excipients, etc. can be found in standardpharmaceutical texts. See, for example, Handbook of PharmaceuticalAdditives, 2nd Edition (eds. M. Ash and I. Ash), 2001 (SynapseInformation Resources, Inc., Endicott, N.Y., USA), Remington'sPharmaceutical Sciences, 20th edition, pub. Lippincott, Williams &Wilkins, 2000; and Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 2nd edition,1994.

One aspect of the present invention pertains to a dosage unit (e.g., apharmaceutical tablet or capsule) comprising an MT compound as describedherein (e.g., obtained by, or obtainable by, a method as describedherein; having a purity as described herein; etc.), and apharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent, or excipient.

The “MT compound”, although present in relatively low amount, is theactive agent of the dosage unit, which is to say is intended to have thetherapeutic or prophylactic effect in respect of a neurodegenerativedisorder of protein aggregation. Rather, the other ingredients in thedosage unit will be therapeutically inactive e.g. carriers, diluents, orexcipients. Thus, preferably, there will be no other active ingredientin the dosage unit, no other agent intended to have a therapeutic orprophylactic effect in respect of a disorder for which the dosage unitis intended to be used.

In some embodiments, the dosage unit is a tablet.

In some embodiments, the dosage unit is a capsule.

In some embodiments, said capsules are gelatine capsules.

In some embodiments, said capsules are HPMC(hydroxypropylmethylcellulose) capsules.

The appropriate quantity of MT in the composition will depend on howoften it is taken by the subject per day.

An example dosage unit may contain 8 to 32 mg of MT.

A further example dosage unit may contain 8 to 16 mg of MT.

In some embodiments, the amount is about 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 mg of MT.

Using the weight factors described or explained herein, one skilled inthe art can select appropriate amounts of an MT-containing compound touse in oral formulations.

As explained above, the MT weight factor for LMTM is 1.67. Since it isconvenient to use unitary or simple fractional amounts of activeingredients, non-limiting example LMTM dosage units may include 13.4,15, 16.7 mg etc.

In one embodiment there is provided a dosage unit pharmaceuticalcomposition which comprises about 34, 67 or 100 mg of LMTM.

Nutraceutical Compositions

The MT-containing compositions utilised in the invention may be presentin a “nutraceutical composition” containing an appropriate dose of MTcompound, as described herein, in combination with one or more nutrientsin an edible form (for example an oral dosage form).

The novel nutraceutical compositions of the invention can find use assupplements to food and beverages, and as pharmaceutical compositions.These nutraceutical compositions, having the MT compound dose describedherein, form another aspect of the invention per se.

“Nutrients” as used herein refers to the components of nutraceuticalcompositions that serve a biochemical and/or physiological role in thehuman or animal body. “Nutrients” includes such substances as vitamins,minerals, trace elements, micronutrients, antioxidants and the like, aswell as other bioactive materials, such as enzymes, or compoundsbiosynthetically produced by human or animal enzymes; as well as herbsand herbal extracts; fatty acids, amino acids and derivatives thereof.

“Edible form” denotes a composition that can be ingested directly orconverted to an ingestible form, such as, by dissolving in water.

Alternatively, the nutraceutical composition can be in the form of afood or drink, such as a defined portion of a foodstuff (which termincludes both food and drink) supplemented with the defined dosage of MTcompound. These foodstuffs will typically comprise one or more of a fat,a protein, or a carbohydrate.

The term “nutraceutical” as used herein denotes a usefulness in both thenutritional and pharmaceutical field of application, and the disclosureherein relating to pharmaceutical dosage forms applies mutatis mutandisto the nutraceutical compositions.

Oral dosage forms particularly suitable for nutraceutical compositionsare well known in the art and described in more detail elsewhere herein.They include powders, capsules, pills, tablets, caplets, gelcaps, anddefined portions of edible food items. Liquid forms include solutions orsuspensions. General examples of dosage forms and nutraceutical formsare given, for example in WO2010/078659.

Some examples of nutrients useful in the compositions of the presentinvention are as follows. Any combination of these nutrients isenvisaged by the present invention:

Vitamins

It is reported that B-vitamin supplementation (folic acid [folate,vitamin B₉], vitamin B₁₂, vitamin B₆) can slow the atrophy of specificbrain regions that are a key component of the AD process and that areassociated with cognitive decline. This is particularly the case forelderly subjects with high homocysteine levels (Douaud, Gwenaëlle, etal. “Preventing Alzheimer's disease-related gray matter atrophy byB-vitamin treatment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110.23 (2013): 9523-9528; see also Quadri, Pierluigi, et al.“Homocysteine, folate, and vitamin B12 in mild cognitive impairment,Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia.” The American journal ofclinical nutrition 80.1 (2004): 114-122; Rosenberg I H, Miller J W.Nutritional factors in physical and cognitive functions of elderlypeople. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1992 Jun. 1;55(6):12375-12435.).

It has been suggested that, along with other antioxidants (see below),vitamin C may have utility in protecting neural tissue, as well aspotentially decreasing β-amyloid generation and acetylcholinesteraseactivity and prevents endothelial dysfunction by regulating nitric oxide(see e.g. Heo J H, Hyon-Lee, Lee K M. The possible role of antioxidantvitamin C in Alzheimer's disease treatment and prevention. AmericanJournal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias. 2013 March;28(2):120-5).

It has also been suggested that Vitamin E supplementation may have arole to play in AD treatment (see e.g. Mangialasche, Francesca, et al.“Serum levels of vitamin E forms and risk of cognitive impairment in aFinnish cohort of older adults.” Experimental Gerontology 48.12 (2013):1428-1435).

Micronutrients, Antioxidants

Micronutrients or antioxidants, such as polyphenols, have been reportedto have benefits in relation to protection or treatment of age-relateddiseases including neurodegenerative ones, particularly cognitiveimpairment and AD.

Micronutrients and\or antioxidants which may be utilised in thenutraceutical compositions described herein include the flavonoids shownin the Table below (reproduced from Mecocci, Patrizia, et al.“Nutraceuticals in cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.”Frontiers in Pharmacology 5:147 (2014)):

Flavonoid chemical subgroups and relative food sources:

Groups Molecules Food source FLAVANOLS Catechin, epicatechin, Cocoa andchocolate, epigallocathechin, green tea, grapes epigallocatechin gallate(EGCG) FLAVONOLS Kaempferol, quercetin Onions, apples, green tea,capers, leeks, broccoli FLAVONES Luteolin, apigenin Celery, parsley,rosemary ISOFLAVONES Daidzein, genistein Soy FLAVANONES Hesperetin,naringenin Citrus fruit, tomatoes ANTHOCYANIDINS Pelargonidin, Berryfruits, red wine cyanidine, malvidin

Other micronutrients having potential utility in relation to protectionor treatment of age-related diseases, and described by Mecocci et alinclude:

-   -   Non-flavonoid polyphenols: resveratrol and curcumin,    -   Carotenoids: lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin,        α-carotene, and the most prominent carotenoid, β-carotene,    -   Crocin (the main chemical compound identified in saffron),    -   Diterpenes: for example carnosic and rosmarinic acids are two of        the most important antioxidant compounds in rosemary.

Herbs and Plant Extracts

In addition to the plants described or cross-referenced above inrelation to micronutrients and antioxidants, other plant extracts andherbs are reported to have benefit in CNS disorders—see Kumar, Vikas.“Potential medicinal plants for CNS disorders: an overview.”Phytotherapy Research 20.12 (2006): 1023-1035. These include Ginkgobiloba, Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort), Piper methysticum Forst.(Family Piperaceae) also called kava kava, Valeriana officinalis L.(Valerian), Bacopa monniera (which in India is locally known as Brahmior Jalanimba), Convolvulus pluricaulis (also known as Shankhpushpi orshankapushpi)

Oils and Fats

It is reported that w-3 poyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), for example,may be a promising tool for preventing age-related brain deterioration.Sources of PUFA such as (docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6) andeicosapentenoic acid (EPA, 20:5) include fish oils (Denis, I., et al.“Omega-3 fatty acids and brain resistance to ageing and stress: body ofevidence and possible mechanisms.” Ageing Research Reviews 12.2 (2013):579-594.)

Subjects, Patients and Patient Groups

The teachings of the invention may be applied to a subject/patient whichis an animal, a mammal, a placental mammal, a rodent (e.g., a guineapig, a hamster, a rat, a mouse), murine (e.g., a mouse), a lagomorph(e.g., a rabbit), avian (e.g., a bird), canine (e.g., a dog), feline(e.g., a cat), equine (e.g., a horse), porcine (e.g., a pig), ovine(e.g., a sheep), bovine (e.g., a cow), a primate, simian (e.g., a monkeyor ape), a monkey (e.g., marmoset, baboon), a monotreme (e.g. platypus),an ape (e.g., gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, gibbon), or a human.

In preferred embodiments, the subject/patient is a human who has beendiagnosed as having one of the cognitive or CNS disorders describedherein, or (for prophylactic treatment) assessed as being susceptible toone of the neurodegenerative disorders of protein aggregation (e.g.cognitive or CNS disorder) described herein—for example based onfamilial or genetic or other data.

The patient may be an adult human, and the population based dosagesdescribed herein are premised on that basis (typical weight 50 to 70kg). If desired, corresponding dosages may be utilised for subjectsfalling outside of this range by using a subject weight factor wherebythe subject weight is divided by 60 kg to provide the multiplicativefactor for that individual subject.

Thus, for example, for diagnosis of AD, and assessment of severity, theinitial selection of a patient may involve any one or more of: rigorousevaluation by experienced clinician; exclusion of non-AD diagnosis asfar as possible by supplementary laboratory and other investigations;objective evaluation of level of cognitive function usingneuropathologically validated battery.

Diagnosis of AD and other disorders described herein can be performed byphysicians by methods well known to those skilled in the art.

As explained herein, MT compounds of an appropriate dosage maydemonstrate benefit (for example in relation to slower rate of declineas measured by ADAS-Cog) even in subjects or patient populations beingtreated in respect of AD using an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.

Examples of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors include Donepezil(Aricept™), Rivastigmine (Exelon™) or Galantamine (Reminyl™). Anexamples of an NMDA receptor antagonist is Memantine (Ebixa™, Namenda™).Examples of the total daily dose of these neurotransmission modifyingcompound is as follows: Donepezil: between 5 and 23 mg; Rivastigmine:between 3 and 12 mg; Galantamine: between 4 and 24 mg; Memantine:between 5 and 20 mg.

Thus in one embodiment of the present invention provides a method oftreatment (or prophylaxis) of AD in a subject,

-   -   which method comprises orally administering to said subject a        methylthioninium (MT) containing compound in the dosage        described herein,    -   wherein said treatment further comprises administration of        either or both of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or an        N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.

In other embodiments the AD subject or patient group may be entirelynaïve to these other treatments, and have not historically received oneor both of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or an N-methyl-D-aspartatereceptor antagonist.

Alternatively the AD subject or patient group may have historicallyreceived one or both of them, but ceased that medication at least 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 days, or 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, or 16 weeks, or morepreferably at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 months etc. prior to treatmentwith an MT compound according to the present invention.

Any aspect of the present invention may include the active step ofselecting the AD subject or patient group according to these criteria,or selecting an AD subject or patient group who is or are receivingtreatment with either or both an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, and discontinuing thattreatment (instructing the subject or patient group to discontinue thattreatment) prior to treatment with an MT compound according to thepresent invention.

Such treatment may optionally be started or re-started aftercommencement of treatment with the MT compound.

Labels, Instructions and Kits of Parts

The unit dosage compositions described herein (e.g. a low doseMT-containing compound plus optionally other ingredients, or MTcomposition more generally for treatment in AD) may be provided in alabelled packet along with instructions for their use.

In one embodiment, the pack is a bottle, such as are well known in thepharmaceutical art. A typical bottle may be made from pharmacopoeialgrade HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) with a childproof, HDPE pushlockclosure and contain silica gel desiccant, which is present in sachets orcanisters. The bottle itself may comprise a label, and be packaged in acardboard container with instructions for us and optionally a furthercopy of the label.

In one embodiment, the pack or packet is a blister pack (preferably onehaving aluminium cavity and aluminium foil) which is thus substantiallymoisture-impervious. In this case the pack may be packaged in acardboard container with instructions for us and label on the container.

Said label or instructions may provide information regarding theneurodegenerative disorders of protein aggregation (e.g. cognitive orCNS disorder) for which the medication is intended.

Where the medication is indicated for AD, said label or instructions mayprovide information instructing the user that the compositions shouldnot be used in conjunction with any of: an acetylcholinesteraseinhibitor or an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.

Said label or instructions may provide information regarding the maximumpermitted daily dosage of the compositions as described herein—forexample based on once daily, b.i.d., or t.i.d.

Said label or instructions may provide information regarding thesuggested duration of treatment, as described herein.

Reversing and/or Inhibiting the Aggregation of a Protein

One aspect of the invention is the use of an MT compound or compositionas described herein, to regulate (e.g., to reverse and/or inhibit) theaggregation of a protein, for example, aggregation of a proteinassociated with a neurodegenerative disease and/or clinical dementia.The aggregation will be associated with a disease state as discussedbelow.

Similarly, one aspect of the invention pertains to a method ofregulating (e.g., reversing and/or inhibiting) the aggregation of aprotein in the brain of a mammal, which aggregation is associated with adisease state as described herein, the treatment comprising the step ofadministering to said mammal in need of said treatment, aprophylactically or therapeutically effective amount of an MT compoundor composition as described herein, that is an inhibitor of saidaggregation.

Disease conditions treatable via the present invention are discussed inmore detail below.

Methods of Treatment

Another aspect of the present invention, as explained above, pertains toa method of treatment comprising administering to a patient in need oftreatment a prophylactically or therapeutically effective amount of acompound as described herein, preferably in the form of a pharmaceuticalcomposition.

Use in Methods of Therapy

Another aspect of the present invention pertains to a compound orcomposition as described herein, for use in a method of treatment (e.g.,of a disease condition) of the human or animal body by therapy.

Use in the Manufacture of Medicaments

Another aspect of the present invention pertains to use of an MTcompound or composition as described herein, in the manufacture of amedicament for use in treatment (e.g., of a disease condition).

In some embodiments, the medicament is a composition e.g. a low-doseunit dose composition as described herein.

Neurodegenerative Disorders of Protein Aggregation

The findings described herein have implications for the dosing of MTcompounds in different diseases. In particular, adopting a dosingregimen which maximises the proportion of subjects in which the MTconcentration will exceed the Cmax threshold, while neverthelessmaintaining a relatively low dose so as to maintain a desirable clinicalprofile, can be applied in the treatment or prophylaxis of variousdiseases of protein aggregation in which MT has been described as beingeffective.

Thus, in some embodiments, the disease condition is a disease of proteinaggregation, and, for example, the treatment is with an amount of acompound or composition as described herein, sufficient to inhibit theaggregation of the protein associated with said disease condition.

The following Table lists various disease-associated aggregatingproteins and the corresponding neurodegenerative disease of proteinaggregation. The use of the dosage regimens of the invention in respectof these proteins or diseases is encompassed by the present invention.

Aggregating domain and/or Fibril subunit Protein Disease mutations size(kDa) Reference Prion protein Prion diseases Inherited and 27 Prusiner(1998) sporadic forms (CJD, nvCJD, Fatal PrP-27-30; many 27 Prusiner(1998) familial insomnia, mutations. Gerstmann-Straussler- Scheinkersyndrome, Kuril) Fibrillogenic Gasset et al. (1992) domains: 113- 120,178-191, 202-218. Tau protein Alzheimer's disease, Inherited and 10-12Wischik et al. (1988) Down's syndrome, FTDP- sporadic forms 17, CBD,post-encephalitic parkinsonism, Pick's disease, parkinsonism withdementia complex of Guam Truncated tau 10-12 Wischik et al. (1988)(tubulin-binding domain) 297-391. Mutations in tau Hutton et al. (1998)in FTDP-17. Many mutations Czech et al. (2000) in presenilin proteins.Amyloid Alzheimer's disease, Inherited and  4 Glenner & Wong, β-proteinDown's syndrome sporadic forms (1984) Amyloid β-  4 Glenner & Wong,protein; 1-42(3). (1984) Mutations in APP Goate et al. (1991) in rarefamilies. Huntingtin Huntington's disease N-termini of 40 DiFiglia etal. (1997) protein with expanded glutamine repeats. Ataxin)Spinocerebellar ataxias Proteins with Paulson et al. (1999) (SCA1, 2, 3,7) expanded glutamine repeats. Atrophin DentatorubropallidoluysianProteins with Paulson et al. (1999) atrophy (DRPLA) expanded glutaminerepeats. Androgen Spinal and bulbar Proteins with Paulson et al. (1999)receptor muscular atrophy expanded glutamine repeats. NeuroserpinFamilial encephalopathy Neuroserpin; 57 Davis et al. (1999) withneuronal inclusion S49P, S52R. bodies (FENIB) α-Synuclein Parkinson'sdisease, Inherited and 19 Spillantini et al. dementia with Lewy sporadicforms (1998) also bodies, multiple system PCT/GB2007/001105 atrophyA53T, A30P in Polymeropoulos et rare autosomal- al. (1997) dominant PDfamilies. TDP-43 FTLD-TDP Several TDP-43 10-43 Mackenzie et al.mutations (2010) Amyotrophic lateral Several TDP-43 10-43 Mackenzie etal. sclerosis mutations (2010) Cystatin C Hereditary cerebral Cystatin Cless 12-13 Abrahamson et al. angiopathy (Icelandic) 10 residues; (1992)L68Q. Superoxide Amyotrophic lateral SOD1 mutations. 16 Shibata et al.(1996) dismutase 1 sclerosis

As described in WO 02/055720, WO2007/110630, and WO2007/110627,diaminophenothiazines have utility in the inhibition of such proteinaggregating diseases.

Thus it will be appreciated that, except where context requiresotherwise, description of embodiments with respect to tau protein ortau-like proteins (e.g., MAP2; see below), should be taken as applyingequally to the other proteins discussed herein (e.g., TDP-43, β-amyloid,synuclein, prion, etc.) or other proteins which may initiate or undergoa similar pathological aggregation by virtue of conformational change ina domain critical for propagation of the aggregation, or which impartsproteolytic stability to the aggregate thus formed (see, e.g., thearticle by Wischik et al. in “Neurobiology of Alzheimer's Disease”, 2ndEdition, 2000, Eds. Dawbarn, D. and Allen, S. J., The Molecular andCellular Neurobiology Series, Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford). Allsuch proteins may be referred to herein as “aggregating diseaseproteins.”

Likewise, where mention is made herein of “tau-tau aggregation”, or thelike, this may also be taken to be applicable to other“aggregating-protein aggregation”, such as β-amyloid aggregation, prionaggregation, synuclein aggregation, etc. The same applies for “tauproteolytic degradation” etc.

Preferred Aggregating Disease Target Proteins

Preferred embodiments of the invention are based on tau protein. Theterm “tau protein,” as used herein, refers generally to any protein ofthe tau protein family. Tau proteins are characterised as being oneamong a larger number of protein families which co-purify withmicrotubules during repeated cycles of assembly and disassembly (see,e.g., Shelanski et al., 1973, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 70, pp.765-768), and are known as microtubule-associated-proteins (MAPs).Members of the tau family share the common features of having acharacteristic N-terminal segment, sequences of approximately 50 aminoacids inserted in the N-terminal segment, which are developmentallyregulated in the brain, a characteristic tandem repeat region consistingof 3 or 4 tandem repeats of 31-32 amino acids, and a C-terminal tail.

MAP2 is the predominant microtubule-associated protein in thesomatodendritic compartment (see, e.g., Matus, A., in “Microtubules”[Hyams and Lloyd, Eds.] pp. 155-166, John Wiley and Sons, New York,USA). MAP2 isoforms are almost identical to tau protein in the tandemrepeat region, but differ substantially both in the sequence and extentof the N-terminal domain (see, e.g., Kindler and Garner, 1994, Mol.Brain Res., Vol. 26, pp. 218-224). Nevertheless, aggregation in thetandem-repeat region is not selective for the tau repeat domain. Thus itwill be appreciated that any discussion herein in relation to tauprotein or tau-tau aggregation should be taken as relating also totau-MAP2 aggregation, MAP2-MAP2 aggregation, and so on.

In some embodiments, the protein is tau protein.

In some embodiments, the protein is a synuclein, e.g., α- orβ-synuclein.

In some embodiments, the protein is TDP-43.

TAR DNA-Binding Protein 43 (TDP-43) is a 414 amino acid protein encodedby TARDBP on chromosome 1p36.2. The protein is highly conserved, widelyexpressed, and predominantly localised to the nucleus but can shuttlebetween the nucleus and cytoplasm (Mackenzie et al 2010). It is involvedin transcription and splicing regulation and may have roles in otherprocesses, such as: microRNA processing, apoptosis, cell division,stabilisation of messenger RNA, regulation of neuronal plasticity andmaintenance of dendritic integrity. Furthermore, since 2006 asubstantial body of evidence has accumulated in support of the TDP-43toxic gain of function hypothesis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis(ALS). TDP-43 is an inherently aggregation-prone protein and aggregatesformed in vitro are ultrastructurally similar to the TDP-43 depositsseen in degenerating neurones in ALS patients (Johnson et al 2009).Johnson et al (2008) showed that when TDP-43 is overexpressed in a yeastmodel only the aggregated form is toxic. Several in vitro studies havealso shown that C-terminal fragments of TDP-43 are more likely thanfull-length TDP-43 to form insoluble cytoplasmic aggregates that becomeubiquitinated, and toxic to cells (Arai et al 2010; Igaz et al 2009;Nonaka et al 2009; Zhang et al 2009). Though Nonaka et al (2009)suggested that these cytoplasmic aggregates bind the endogenousfull-length protein depleting it from the nucleus, Zhang et al (2009)found retention of normal nuclear expression, suggesting a purely toxiceffect for the aggregates. Yang et al (2010) have described the captureof full-length TDP-43 within aggregates of C- and N-terminal fragmentsof TDP-43 in NSC34 motor neurons in culture. Neurite outgrowth, impairedas a result of the presence of such truncated fragments, could berescued by overexpression of the full-length protein. Although the roleof neurite outgrowth in vivo has not been established, this model wouldsupport the suggestion made by Nonaka and colleagues for a role ofTDP-43 aggregation in ALS pathogenesis.

Mutant TDP-43 expression in cell cultures has repeatedly been reportedto result in increased generation of C-terminal fragments, with evengreater cytoplasmic aggregation and toxic effects than the wild-typeprotein (Kabashi et al 2008; Sreedharan et al 2008; Johnson et al 2009;Nonaka et al 2009; Arai et al 2010; Barmarda et al 2010; Kabashi et al2010).

Where the protein is tau protein, in some embodiments of the presentinvention, there is provided a method of inhibiting production ofprotein aggregates (e.g. in the form of paired helical filaments (PHFs),optionally in neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the brain of a mammal,the treatment being as described above.

Preferred Indications—Diseases of Protein Aggregation

In one embodiment the present invention is used for the treatment ofAlzheimer's disease (AD)— for example mild, moderate or severe AD.

Notably it is not only Alzheimer's disease (AD) in which tau protein(and aberrant function or processing thereof) may play a role. Thepathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders such as Pick's disease andprogressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) appears to correlate with anaccumulation of pathological truncated tau aggregates in the dentategyrus and stellate pyramidal cells of the neocortex, respectively. Otherdementias include fronto-temporal dementia (FTD); FTD with parkinsonismlinked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17);disinhibition-dementia-parkinsonism-amyotrophy complex (DDPAC);pallido-ponto-nigral degeneration (PPND); Guam-ALS syndrome;pallido-nigro-luysian degeneration (PNLD); cortico-basal degeneration(CBD) and others (see, e.g., the article by Wischik et al. in“Neurobiology of Alzheimer's Disease”, 2nd Edition, 2000, Eds. Dawbarn,D. and Allen, S. J., The Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology Series,Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford; especially Table 5.1). All of thesediseases, which are characterized primarily or partially by abnormal tauaggregation, are referred to herein as “tauopathies”.

Thus, in some embodiments, the disease condition is a tauopathy.

In some embodiments, the disease condition is a neurodegenerativetauopathy.

In some embodiments, the disease condition is selected from Alzheimer'sdisease (AD), Pick's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP),fronto temporal dementia (FTD), FTD with parkinsonism linked tochromosome 17 (FTDP 17), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)syndromes; disinhibition-dementia-parkinsonism-amyotrophy complex(DDPAC), pallido-ponto-nigral degeneration (PPND), Guam-ALS syndrome,pallido nigro luysian degeneration (PNLD), cortico-basal degeneration(CBD), dementia with argyrophilic grains (AgD), dementia pugilistica(DP) or chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), Down's syndrome (DS),dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), subacute sclerosing panencephalitis(SSPE), MCI, Niemann-Pick disease, type C (NPC), Sanfilippo syndrometype B (mucopolysaccharidosis III B), or myotonic dystrophies (DM), DM1or DM2, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

In some embodiments, the disease condition is a lysosomal storagedisorder with tau pathology. NPC is caused by mutations in the geneNPC1, which affects cholesterol metabolism (Love et al 1995) andSanfilippo syndrome type B is caused by a mutation in the gene NAGLU, inwhich there is lysosomal accumulation of heparin sulphate (Ohmi et al.2009). In these lysosomal storage disorders, tau pathology is observedand its treatment may decrease the progression of the disease. Otherlysosomal storage disorders may also be characterised by accumulation oftau.

Use of phenothiazine diammonium salts in the treatment of Parkinson'sdisease and MCI is described in more detail in PCT/GB2007/001105 andPCT/GB2008/002066.

In some embodiments, the disease condition is Parkinson's disease, MCI,or Alzheimer's disease.

In some embodiments, the disease condition is Huntington's disease orother polyglutamine disorder such as spinal bulbar muscular atrophy (orKennedy disease), and dentatorubropallidoluysian atrophy and variousspinocerebellar ataxias.

In some embodiments, the disease condition is an FTLD syndrome (whichmay for example be a tauopathy or TDP-43 proteinopathy, see below).

In some embodiments, the disease condition is PSP or ALS.

TDP-43 proteinopathies include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS;ALS-TDP) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-TDP).

The role of TDP-43 in neurodegeneration in ALS and otherneurodegenerative disorders has been reviewed in several recentpublications (Chen-Plotkin et al 2010; Gendron et al 2010; Geser et al2010; Mackenzie et al 2010).

ALS is a neurodegenerative disease, characterised by progressiveparalysis and muscle wasting, consequent on the degeneration of bothupper and lower motor neurones in the primary motor cortex, brainstemand spinal cord. It is sometimes referred to as motor neuron disease(MND) but there are diseases other than ALS which affect either upper orlower motor neurons. A definite diagnosis requires both upper and lowermotor neurone signs in the bulbar, arm and leg musculature with clearevidence of clinical progression that cannot be explained by any otherdisease process (Wijesekera and Leigh 2009).

Although the majority of cases are ALS-TDP, there are other cases wherethe pathological protein differs from TDP-43. Misfolded SOD1 is thepathological protein in ubiquitin-positive inclusions in ALS with SOD1mutations (Seetharaman et al 2009) and in a very small subset(approximately 3-4%) of familial ALS, due to mutations in FUS (fused insarcoma protein), the ubiquitinated pathological protein is FUS (Vanceet a/2009; Blair et a/2010). FUS, like TDP-43, appears to be importantin nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling although the ways in which impairednuclear import of FUS remains unclear. A new molecular classification ofALS, adapted from Mackenzie et al (2010), reflects the distinctunderlying pathological mechanisms in the different subtypes (see Tablebelow).

New Molecular Classification of ALS (modified from Mackenzie et al2010). In the majority of cases, TDP-43 is the pathologicalubiquitinated protein found in ALS.

Ubiquitin-positive inclusions in ALS Ubiquitinated disease proteinTDP-43 FUS SOD1 Clinico- ALS-TDP ALS-FUS ALS-SOD1 pathologic subtypeAssociated TARDBP FUS SOD1 genotype Frequency of Common Rare Rare ALScases

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been recognised as a nosologicalentity for almost a century and a half and it is recognised in ICD-10and is classified as a subtype of MND in ICD 10, codeG12.2. Reliableclinical diagnostic are available for ALS, which differ little fromCharcot's original description, and neuropathological criteria,reflecting the underlying molecular pathology, have also been agreed.

While ALS is classified pathologically into three subgroups, ALS-TDP,ALS-SOD1 and ALS-FUS, both latter conditions are rare. The largest studyto date showed all sporadic ALS cases to have TDP-43 pathology(Mackenzie et al 2007). Only around 5% of ALS is familial (Byrne et al2010) and mutations in SOD1, the commonest mutations found in FALS,account for between 12-23% of cases (Andersen et al 2006). SOD1 may alsobe implicated in 2-7% of SALS. Mutations in FUS appear to be far lesscommon, accounting for only around 3-4% of FALS (Blair et al 2010). Soit can be reliably predicted that a clinical case of SALS will haveTDP-43 based pathology. Similarly this can be reliably predicted in FALSdue to mutations in TDP-43, which account for around 4% of cases(Mackenzie et al 2010). ALS with mutations in: VCP, accounting for 1-2%of FALS (Johnson et al 2010), ANG (Seilhean et al 2009), and CHMP2B (Coxet al 2010) have also been reported to be associated with TDP-43positive pathology. Although SOD1, FUS and ATXN2 mutations have not beenfound to be associated with TDP-43 positive aggregates, it has howeverbeen reported that TDP-43 is implicated in the pathological processesputatively arising from these mutations (Higashi et al 2010; Ling et al2010; Elden et al 2010).

It is therefore established that TDP-43 has an important, andpotentially central role, in the pathogenesis of the vast majority ofSALS cases and may be implicated in the pathogenesis of a significantproportion of FALS. ALS is now widely considered to be a TDP-43proteinopathy (Neumann et al 2009) and numerous in vitro, and in vivostudies provide support to the hypothesis that toxic gain of function,due to TDP-43 aggregation is responsible for at least some of theneurotoxicity in the disease.

FTLD syndromes are insidious onset, inexorably progressive,neurodegenerative conditions, with peak onset in late middle age. Thereis often a positive family history of similar disorders in a firstdegree relative.

Behavioural variant FTD is characterised by early prominent change insocial and interpersonal function, often accompanied by repetitivebehaviours and changes in eating pattern. In semantic dementia there areprominent word finding problems, despite otherwise fluent speech, withdegraded object knowledge and impaired single word comprehension oncognitive assessment. Progressive non-fluent aphasia presents with acombination of motor speech problems and grammatical deficits. The coreclinical diagnostic features for these three FTLD syndromes are shown inthe Table below and the full criteria in Neary et al (1998).

Clinical Profile and Core Diagnostic Features of FTLD Syndromes

FTLD Syndrome -Clinical Profile Core Diagnostic Features FrontotemporalDementia 1. Insidious onset and gradual Character change and disorderedsocial progression conduct are the dominant features initially 2. Earlydecline in social interpersonal and throughout the disease course.conduct Instrumental functions of perception, 3. Early impairment inregulation of spatial skills, praxis and memory are intact personalconduct or relatively well preserved. 4. Early emotional blunting 5.Early loss of insight Semantic Dementia A) Insidious onset and gradualprogression Semantic disorder (impaired B) Language disordercharacterised by understanding of word meaning and/or 1. Progressive,fluent empty speech object identity) is the dominant feature 2. Loss ofword meaning manifest by initially and throughout the disease course.impaired naming and Other aspects of cognition, including comprehensionautobiographic memory, are intact or 3. Semantic paraphasias and/orrelatively well preserved. 4. Perceptual disorder characterised by 1.Prosopagnosia: impaired recognition of identity of familiar faces and/or2. Associative agnosia: impaired recognition of object identity C)Preserved perceptual matching and drawing reproduction D) Preservedsingle word repetition E) Preserved ability to read aloud and write todictation orthographically regular words Progressive Non-fluent AphasiaA) Insidious onset and gradual Disorder of expressive language is theprogression dominant feature initially and throughout B) Non-fluentspontaneous speech with at the disease course. Other aspects of leastone of the following: cognition are intact or relatively wellagrammatism, phonemic paraphasias preserved. or anomia

The discovery that TDP-43-positive inclusions characterize ALS andFTLD-TDP (Neumann et al 2006) was quickly followed by the identificationof missense mutations in the TARDBP gene in both familial and sporadiccases of ALS (Gitcho et al 2008; Sreedharan et al., 2008). So far, 38different TARDBP mutations have been reported in 79 genealogicallyunrelated families worldwide (Mackenzie et al 2010). TARDBP mutationsaccount for approximately 4% of all familial and around 1.5% of sporadicALS cases.

As of December 2010, mutations in thirteen genes which are associatedwith familial and sporadic ALS have been identified. Linkage of ALS tofive other chromosome loci has been demonstrated but thus far specificmutations have not been identified.

TDP-43 Proteinopathies

MT has a mode of action which targets and can reduce TDP-43 proteinaggregation in cells, which is a pathological feature of the vastmajority of both familial and sporadic ALS and is also characteristic ofFTLD-P.

In addition laboratory data shows that methylthioninium inhibits theformation of TDP-43 aggregates in SH-SY5Y cells. Following treatmentwith 0.05 μM MT, the number of TDP-43 aggregates was reduced by 50%.These findings were confirmed by immunoblot analysis (Yamashita et al2009).

The compounds and compositions of the invention may therefore be usefulfor the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) andfrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).

Huntington's Disease and Polyglutamine Disorders

MT can reduce polyglutamine protein aggregation in cells, which is apathological feature of Huntington's disease. Huntington's disease iscaused by expansion of a translated CAG repeat located in the N-terminusof huntingtin. Wild-type chromosomes contain 6-34 repeats whereas, inHuntington's disease, chromosomes contain 36-121 repeats. The age ofonset of disease correlates inversely with the length of the CAG tractsthat code for polyglutamine repeats within the protein.

Laboratory data shows that methylthioninium inhibits the formation ofaggregates of a huntingtin derivative containing a polyglutamine stretchof 102 residues in zebrafish (van Bebber et al. 2010). MT, when testedat 0, 10 and 100 μM, prevented the formation of such aggregates inzebrafish in a dose-dependent manner.

The compounds and compositions of the invention may therefore be usefulfor the treatment of Huntington's disease and other polyglutaminedisorders such as spinal bulbar muscular atrophy (or Kennedy disease),and dentatorubropallidoluysian atrophy and various spinocerebellarataxias (Orr & Zoghbi, 2007).

Mitochondrial Diseases and Lafora Disease

The organ most frequently affected in mitochondrial disorders,particularly respiratory chain diseases (RCDs), in addition to theskeletal muscle, is the central nervous system (CNS). CNS manifestationsof RCDs comprise stroke-like episodes, epilepsy, migraine, ataxia,spasticity, movement disorders, psychiatric disorders, cognitivedecline, or even dementia (mitochondrial dementia). So far mitochondrialdementia has been reported in MELAS, MERRF, LHON, CPEO, KSS, MNGIE,NARP, Leigh syndrome, and Alpers—Huttenlocher disease (Finsterer, 2009).There are four complexes in the mitochondrial respiration chain,involving a series of electron transfers. Abnormal function of any ofthese complexes can result in mitochondrial diseases secondary to anabnormal electron transport chain and subsequent abnormal mitochondrialrespiration. Complex III of the mitochondrial respiration chain acts totransfer electrons to cytochrome c.

Compounds and compositions of the invention may also be used to treatmitochondrial diseases which are associated with a deficient and/orimpaired complex III function of the respiration chain. The compoundshave the ability to act as effective electron carrier and/or transfer,as the thioninium moiety has a low redox potential converting betweenthe oxidised and reduced form. In the event of an impaired and/ordeficient function of Complex III leading to mitochondrial diseases,compounds of the invention are also able to perform the electrontransportation and transfer role of complex III because of the abilityof the thioninium moiety to shuttle between the oxidised and reducedform, thus acting as an electron carrier in place of sub-optimallyfunctioning complex III, transferring electrons to cytochrome c.

Compounds and compositions of the invention also have the ability togenerate an active thioninium moiety that has the ability to divertmisfolded protein/amino acid monomers/oligomers away from the Hsp70ADP-associated protein accumulation and/or refolding pathways, andinstead rechannel these abnormal folded protein monomers/oligomers tothe pathway that leads directly to the Hsp70 ATP-dependentubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS), a pathway which removes thesemisfolded proteins/amino acid monomers/oligomers via the direct route(Jinwal et al. 2009).

Lafora disease (LD) is an autosomal recessive teenage-onset fatalepilepsy associated with a gradual accumulation of poorly branched andinsoluble glycogen, termed polyglucosan, in many tissues. In the brain,polyglucosan bodies, or Lafora bodies, form in neurons. Inhibition ofHsp70 ATPase by MT (Jinwal et al. 2009) may upregulate the removal ofmisfolded proteins. Lafora disease is primarily due to a lysosomalubiquitin-proteasomal system (UPS) defect because of a mutation ineither the Laforin or Malin genes, both located on Chromosome 6, whichresult in inclusions that may accelerate the aggregation of misfoldedtau protein. Secondary mitochondrial damage from the impaired UPS mayfurther result in a suppressed mitochondrial activity and impairedelectron transport chain leading to further lipofuscin and initiatingthe seizures that are characteristic of Lafora disease.

The MT moiety may disaggregate existing tau aggregates, reduce more tauaccumulating and enhance lysosomal efficiency by inhibiting Hsp70ATPase. MT may lead to a reduction in tau tangles by enhancing theubiquitin proteasomal system removal of tau monomers/oligomers, throughits inhibitory action on Hsp70 ATPase.

Thus compounds and compositions of the present invention may haveutility in the treatment of Lafora disease.

Mixtures of Oxidised and Reduced MT Compounds

The LMT-containing compounds utilised in the present invention mayinclude oxidised (MT⁺) compounds as ‘impurities’ during synthesis, andmay also oxidize (e.g., autoxidize) after synthesis to give thecorresponding oxidized forms. Thus, it is likely, if not inevitable,that compositions comprising the compounds of the present invention willcontain, as an impurity, at least some of the corresponding oxidizedcompound. For example an “LMT” salt may include up to 15% e.g. 10 to 15%of MT⁺ salt.

When using mixed MT compounds the MT dose can be readily calculatedusing the molecular weight factors of the compounds present.

Salts and Solvates

Although the MT-containing compounds described herein are themselvessalts, they may also be provided in the form of a mixed salt (i.e., thecompound of the invention in combination with another salt). Such mixedsalts are intended to be encompassed by the term “and pharmaceuticallyacceptable salts thereof”. Unless otherwise specified, a reference to aparticular compound also includes salts thereof.

The compounds of the invention may also be provided in the form of asolvate or hydrate. The term “solvate” is used herein in theconventional sense to refer to a complex of solute (e.g., compound, saltof compound) and solvent. If the solvent is water, the solvate may beconveniently referred to as a hydrate, for example, a mono-hydrate, adi-hydrate, a tri-hydrate, a penta-hydrate etc. Unless otherwisespecified, any reference to a compound also includes solvate and anyhydrate forms thereof.

Naturally, solvates or hydrates of salts of the compounds are alsoencompassed by the present invention.

A number of patents and publications are cited herein in order to morefully describe and disclose the invention and the state of the art towhich the invention pertains. Each of these references is incorporatedherein by reference in its entirety into the present disclosure, to thesame extent as if each individual reference was specifically andindividually indicated to be incorporated by reference.

Throughout this specification, including the claims which follow, unlessthe context requires otherwise, the word “comprise,” and variations suchas “comprises” and “comprising,” will be understood to imply theinclusion of a stated integer or step or group of integers or steps butnot the exclusion of any other integer or step or group of integers orsteps.

It must be noted that, as used in the specification and the appendedclaims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include plural referentsunless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example,reference to “a pharmaceutical carrier” includes mixtures of two or moresuch carriers, and the like.

Ranges are often expressed herein as from “about” one particular value,and/or to “about” another particular value. When such a range isexpressed, another embodiment includes from the one particular valueand/or to the other particular value. Similarly, when values areexpressed as approximations, by the use of the antecedent “about,” itwill be understood that the particular value forms another embodiment.

Any sub-titles herein are included for convenience only, and are not tobe construed as limiting the disclosure in any way.

The invention will now be further described with reference to thefollowing non-limiting Figures and Examples. Other embodiments of theinvention will occur to those skilled in the art in the light of these.

The disclosure of all references cited herein, inasmuch as it may beused by those skilled in the art to carry out the invention, is herebyspecifically incorporated herein by cross-reference.

FIGURES

FIG. 1 . Schematic of the simplified population PK model for MT.

FIGS. 2 a and b . Histogram of Bayesian post-hoc estimates ofsteady-state parent MT Cmax in AD patients from Studies 005 and 015 whoreceived LMTM 4 mg BID or c. 200 mg/day.

FIG. 3 a and 3 b . ADAS-cog change over 65 weeks for pooled 8 mg/daydose as mono- or add-on therapy in AD subjects from Studies 005 and 015according to estimated steady-state Cmax. Note the lower p-value in‘strata.Acmem’ is due to larger number of subjects receiving LMTM asadd-on treatment.

FIG. 4 . Analysis of AD subjects showing reduced brain atrophy andventricular expansion in high Cmax group both as monotherapy and asadd-on.

FIG. 5 . Estimation of proportion of AD subjects in high Cmax groupaccording to dose. The Y axis shows the % over the threshold. 4 mg BIDis 50% reflecting the original median split of the high and low Cmaxgroups at this dosage.

FIG. 6 . Distribution of estimated Cmax values for 8 and 200 mg/day inbvFTD trial subjects

FIG. 7 . Difference in decline on ACE-R scale according to Cmax group inbvFTD patients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day as monotherapy for treatment ofbvFTD

FIG. 8 . Difference in decline on ACE-R scale according to Cmax group inbvFTD patients receiving LMTM 200 mg/day as monotherapy for treatment ofbvFTD

FIG. 9 . Difference in decline on FAQ scale according to Cmax group inbvFTD patients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day as monotherapy

FIG. 10 . Difference in decline on FAQ scale according to Cmax group inbvFTD patients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day or 200 mg/day as monotherapy

FIGS. 11 a, b and c . Difference in WBV, FTV and LVV according to Cmaxgroup in bvFTD patients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day as monotherapy.

FIG. 12 . Sigmoid E_(max) analysis for ADAS-cog₁₁ decline at week 65with model covariates at population mean values and 90% bootstrapconfidence intervals using C_(max,SS) at day 1 for low dose AD patientsfrom studies TRx-237-005 and TRx-237-015.

FIG. 13 . Concentration-response relationships for clinical and MRIvolumetric endpoints for C_(max,ss) groupings of AD patients receivingLMTM at a dose of 8 mg/day

FIG. 14 . Comparison of primary clinical and MRI volumetric endpointsfor all AD patients: categorized by C_(max,ss) above (“high exposure”)or below (“low exposure”) parent MT threshold of 0.373 ng/mL.

FIG. 15 . Expected percentage of AD patients above the criticaltherapeutic threshold for C_(max,ss) (0.393 ng/ml) and C_(ave,ss) (0.223ng/ml) according to once daily (qd) and twice daily (bid) dosingregimes.

FIG. 16 . Comparison of primary clinical and MRI endpoint in AD patientsreceiving LMTM, 8 mg/day: categorised by C_(max,ss) above (“highexposure”) or below (“low exposure”) parent MT threshold of 0.373 ng/mland AChEl and/or memantine use status.

FIG. 17 . Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic response on the ADAS-cog scaleover 65 weeks in AD patients taking LMTM at a dose of 8 mg/day andcategorized by co-medication status with AD-labelled treatments.

FIG. 18 . Concentration-response relationships for ACE-R, FAQ, FTV, LVVand WBV in bvFTD patients.

FIG. 19 . Estimated change from baseline over time in clinical and MRIneuroimaging endpoints in bvFTD patients taking 8 mg/day categorized byplasma levels above or below the C_(max,ss) threshold of 0.346 ng/ml.

FIG. 20 . Fit of expanded Hill equation with change in whole brainvolume over 52 weeks for bvFTD patients.

EXAMPLES Example 1— Provision of MT-Containing Compounds

Methods for the chemical synthesis of the MT-containing compoundsdescribed herein are known in the art. For example:

Synthesis of compounds 1 to 7 can be performed according to the methodsdescribed in WO2012/107706, or methods analogous to those.

Synthesis of compound 8 can be performed according to the methodsdescribed in WO2007/110627, or a method analogous to those.

Example 2— Provision of AD Symptomatic Treatments

AD symptomatic treatments includes those which directly modify synapticneurotransmission in the brain are commercially available asacetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEls) or NMDA receptor antagonists.

Examples of AChEls include tacrine (Cognex™, First Horizon), donepezil(Aricept™, Eisai/Pfizer), rivastigmine (Exelon™, Novartis), andgalantamine (Razadyne™, formerly Reminyl™, Ortho-McNeil). Memantine isavailable as Ebixa™ or Namenda™ e.g. from Forest.

Example 3— a Novel Population PK Model for MT

In an initial model (not shown), the disposition of all MT moieties(parent MT, desmethyl MT, and LMT-conjugate) was simultaneouslycharacterized by a multi-compartment model. The disposition of parent MTpost PO administration was adequately described by a two-compartmentmodel with binding occurring in the plasma and tissue compartments and adelayed absorption occurring through two transit compartments. Thismodel has a fixed Vc.

There was a trend for absorption rate to be slower with increasing dose,which is incorporated into the model using a dose-dependent absorptionrate constant (Ka). Apparent oral clearance (CL/F) of parent MT wasrelated to renal function such that a small portion of the variabilityin parent CL is described by normalized creatinine clearance (CLCRN). Aminor fraction of parent MT was metabolized into desmethyl MT, and thedisposition of desmethyl MT was described by a two-compartment modelwith linear elimination. Parent MT was also converted intoLMT-glucuronide, and its disposition was described by a one-compartmentmodel with linear elimination. Of note, a fraction of LMT-conjugateunderwent enterohepatic recycling (EHR), which was physiologicallymimicked via a latent gallbladder compartment with a pulsatile patternof bile secretion.

The above-described model was applied to the data from a single- andmultiple-dose Phase 1 study in elderly subjects (Study 036) in order toassess the ability of the model to predict steady-state PK of parent MT.The model was successfully fit to data obtained from subjects whoreceived either 4 mg BID or 10 mg QD of LMTM in Study 036.

This, the PK model was then further developed and simplified to a twocompartment model fit to the parent MT concentrations only. A schematicof this simplified population PK model for MT is provided in FIG. 1 .This model has a fixed Vc, but the dose-dependent Ka is removed.

This model was derived from Study 036 discussed above. The dispositionof parent MT post PO administration of LMTM was adequately described bya two-compartment model with and a delayed absorption occurring throughtwo transit compartments. Apparent oral clearance (CL/F) of parent MTwas related to renal function such that a small portion of thevariability in parent CL is described by normalized creatinine clearance(CLCRN).

The model was successfully fit to data obtained from subjects whoreceived either 4 mg BID or 10 mg QD of LMTM in Study 036.

The simplified model provides similar fit to the previous moresophisticated model, but allows co-modelling of all of the data fromStudy 036.

Overall, excellent fits to the individual subject data were obtainedsuggesting that the model provided an adequate description of the PK ofparent MT after administration of LMTM.

Example 4—Estimation of Cmax of Parent MT in the Patients Who Received 4mg BID in the Phase 3 AD Studies (Studies “005” and “015”)

The trial design for the Phase 3 AD studies “005” and “015” aredescribed in Examples 4 and 3 respectively of WO2018/019823, whichExamples also discuss those results. The disclosure of those Examples isspecifically incorporated herein by reference. Briefly, those Phase 3trials compared high doses of LMTM (150-250 mg/day) with a low dose (8mg/day) intended as a mask for potential urine discolouration (Gauthier2016; Wilcock 2018). These showed the potential utility for LMTM,particularly as monotherapy, in delaying disease progression on clinicaland brain imaging endpoints, and that the high doses conferred nogreater potential benefit than the 8 mg/day dose.

The population PK model was then used to estimate Cmax of parent MT inthe patients who received 4 mg or high dose (c. 200 mg/day) in thesePhase 3 AD studies. This Bayesian process involved fixing the populationmean and inter-individual variability parameters to the estimates fromthe fit of the population PK model to the steady-state data from Study036 and allowing the program to select a set of parameters, given thoseBayesian priors, which best predicts the parent MT concentrations fromDay 1 in each individual.

The distribution of resultant Cmax estimates are provided in FIGS. 2 aand 2 b . The ˜200 mg/day group represents pooled high dose subjectsfrom Study 015 (150 & 250 mg/day) and Study 005 (200 mg/day).

In these Figures the vertical black line indicates median for eachdistribution, which can be used to divide patients into low and highCmax groups.

Example 5— Assessment of Different Effects of Pooled 8 mg/Day Dose asMono- or Add-on Therapy from Studies 005 and 015 in High and Low CmaxGroups at Steady-State

Using an Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) approach, ADAS-cogchange over 65 weeks for pooled 8 mg/day dose as mono- or add-on therapyfrom Studies 005 and 015 was then calculated for the “High Cmax” and“Low Cmax” groups, in each case divided into those receiving LMTM asmonotherapy, or in combination (“add-on”) with symptomatic treatments(AChEls and\or memantine). The results are shown in FIGS. 3 a and 3 bwhich show the same data. Patients using symptomatic treatments arelabelled “Achmem”.

FIG. 3 a emphasises the findings in WO2018/019823 that Symptomatictreatments interfere with LMTM treatment effect. The mean differencebetween monotherapy and add-on can be seen to be ˜4 ADAS-cog units.

As highlighted in FIG. 3 b , unexpectedly, the analysis of this low (8mg/day) dose also revealed a difference between Cmax high and low groupsfor monotherapy of ˜2.4 ADAS-cog units, and a difference between Cmaxhigh and low groups for the add-on groups of ˜2.7 ADAS-cog units i.e.the same concentration-dependent difference seen for monotherapy andadd-on treatment.

In further analyses, FIG. 4 shows that the high Cmax group has lesswhole brain and temporal lobe atrophy, and less expansion of ventriclesboth as monotherapy and add-on therapy. As expected there was less brainatrophy in monotherapy than in add-on groups. It should be noted thatthe differences achieve statistical significance only for the add-ongroup, which had substantially larger number of subjects.

Corresponding analysis of the pooled high dose group (average 200mg/day) did not show a corresponding different treatment effect betweenCmax high and low groups, whether as monotherapy or add-on (data notshown).

Example 6— Safety and Adverse Events: Benefits in Using MinimalEffective Dose of LMT Compounds

Three Phase 3, double-blind, controlled studies of LMTM have beencompleted (one each in subjects with mild and mild to moderate AD andone in subjects with bvFTD). Results of the AD studies have beenpublished (Gauthier et al., 2016; Wilcock et al., 2018).

In these three studies, 1897 subjects received at least one dose of LMTM(Safety Population [Five additional subjects with AD, participating atone site in Study TRx-237-005, received a dose of study drug but wereexcluded from all analyses due to GCP violations], 1679 subjects with ADand 218 subjects with bvFTD). Of these, 860 subjects received thecontrol (LMTM 8 mg/day, 750 with AD and 110 with bvFTD) and 1037subjects received at least one dose of LMTM in the higher doses of 150to 250 mg/day (929 with AD and 108 with bvFTD).

The mean ages of study participants were 71 years (ranging up to 89years) for subjects with AD and 63 years (ranging up to 79 years) forsubjects with bvFTD. Overall, there was a comparable representation bysex (55% female), with more AD subjects being female (58%) and morebvFTD subjects being male (63%). Most subjects were White (88% AD and91% bvFTD). Approximately 17% of the AD subjects received LMTM asmonotherapy (as recorded on the concomitant medication case report formrather than by stratification [overall, 87% of subjects were receivingAChEl and/or memantine based on the stratified randomisation]), with theremainder receiving concomitant AChEl and/or memantine. On the otherhand, most subjects with bvFTD received LMTM as monotherapy (79%).Psychiatric disorders/symptoms were common, with depression reported for23% of the subjects overall and anxiety for 12%. Concomitant use ofantidepressants and antipsychotics was more common in subjects withbvFTD (50% and 22%, respectively) as compared with AD (36% and 10%,respectively).

The most common Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) considered atleast possibly associated with LMTM given in a dose of 8 mg/day are GI(mostly diarrhea and nausea), genitourinary (mostly pollakiuria andurinary incontinence), haematologic (anaemia, decreased folate, andfolate deficiency), and nervous system related (mostly fatigue,dizziness, headache, agitation, and insomnia). Other common events areconsidered to represent events that are expected in these patientpopulations over a 12- to 18-month duration.

At the higher LMTM doses studied, 150 to 250 mg/day, there was adose-related increase in the incidence of anaemia-related TEAEs(decreased haemoglobin in addition to anaemia, decreased folate, andfolate deficiency), gastrointestinal events (including vomiting and thepossibly associated observation of decreased weight in addition todiarrhoea and nausea), and genitourinary events (including dysuria,micturition urgency, and apparent urinary tract infections in additionto pollakiuria and urinary incontinence). The lack of a dose response infalls and nervous system/psychiatric events (other than agitation)suggests that these are associated with the subjects' underlyingcondition rather than treatment.

The incidence of the most common TEAEs are summarised by dose in thefollowing Table EX1. This includes TEAEs that occurred at an incidenceof ≥2.0% either in subjects randomised to LMTM 8 mg/day or higher doses(150 to 250 mg/day). The subset of TEAEs that were severe in intensityare also included. As can be seen, few events occurred in severeintensity, regardless of dose.

TABLE EX1 Incidence of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events in ≥2.0% ofSubjects by Dose: LMTM 8 mg/day versus Higher Doses (Phase 3,Double-blind, LMTM Pooled Safety Population) LMTM 8 mg/day Higher Doses(150-250 mg/day) (N = 860) (N = 1037) Severe Severe MedDRA System OrganAll Intensity All Intensity Class/Preferred Term n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)No. (%) of Subjects 720 (83.7%) 86 (10.0%) 902 (87.0%) 126 (12.2%) Reporting at Least One TEAE Blood and Lymphatic System Disorders Anaemia19 (2.2%) 1 (0.1%) 59 (5.7%) 0 Cardiac Disorders Atrial fibrillation 17(2.0%) 3 (0.3%) 10 (1.0%) 2 (0.2%) Gastrointestinal Disorders Abdominalpain 16 (1.9%) 1 (0.1%) 30 (2.9%) 1 (0.1%) Abdominal pain upper 10(1.2%) 1 (0.1%) 21 (2.0%) 0 Constipation 23 (2.7%) 2 (0.2%) 24 (2.3%) 1(0.1%) Diarrhoea 109 (12.7%) 5 (0.6%) 278 (26.8%) 14 (1.4%)  Nausea 39(4.5%) 1 (0.1%) 86 (8.3%) 1 (0.1%) Vomiting 20 (2.3%) 0 80 (7.7%) 3(0.3%) General Disorders and Administration Site Conditions Fatigue 26(3.0%) 0 38 (3.7%) 1 (0.1%) Oedema peripheral 19 (2.2%) 0 20 (1.9%) 0Infections and Infestations Bronchitis 27 (3.1%) 0 19 (1.8%) 0Nasopharyngitis 40 (4.7%) 0 43 (4.1%) 0 Upper respiratory tract 35(4.1%) 0 34 (3.3%) 0 infection Urinary tract infection 76 (8.8%) 1(0.1%) 116 (11.2%) 3 (0.3%) Injury, Poisoning and ProceduralComplications Contusion 24 (2.8%) 0 15 (1.4%) 0 Fall  90 (10.5%) 4(0.5%) 78 (7.5%) 7 (0.7%) Laceration 17 (2.0%) 0 14 (1.4%) 1 (0.1%)Investigations Blood creatine 18 (2.1%) 0 31 (3.0%) 0 phosphokinaseincreased Blood folate decreased 45 (5.2%) 0 76 (7.3%) 0 Creatininerenal clearance 20 (2.3%) 0 26 (2.5%) 0 decreased Haemoglobin decreased 6 (0.7%) 0 34 (3.3%) 0 Vitamin B12 decreased 23 (2.7%) 0 21 (2.0%) 0Weight decreased 18 (2.1%) 0 39 (3.8%) 0 Metabolism and NutritionDisorders Decreased appetite 13 (1.5%) 0 39 (3.8%) 1 (0.1%) Dehydration17 (2.0%) 4 (0.5%) 18 (1.7%) 2 (0.2%) Folate deficiency 17 (2.0%) 0 45(4.3%) 0 Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders Arthralgia 28(3.3%) 0 31 (3.0%) 1 (0.1%) Back pain 31 (3.6%) 1 (0.1%) 44 (4.2%) 2(0.2%) Pain in extremity 19 (2.2%) 1 (0.1%)  17(1.6%) 0 Nervous SystemDisorders Cerebral microhaemorrhage 24 (2.8%) 0 16 (1.5%) 0 Dizziness 49(5.7%) 3 (0.3%) 64 (6.2%) 2 (0.2%) Headache 55 (6.4%) 1 (0.1%) 61 (5.9%)3 (0.3%) Syncope 26 (3.0%) 1 (0.1%) 28 (2.7%) 5 (0.5%) Tremor 20 (2.3%)0 13 (1.3%) 0 Psychiatric Disorders Agitation 46 (5.3%) 1 (0.1%) 61(5.9%) 7 (0.7%) Anxiety 52 (6.0%) 0 39 (3.8%) 2 (0.2%) Confusional state22 (2.6%) 2 (0.2%) 45 (4.3%) 2 (0.2%) Depression 41 (4.8%) 0 37 (3.6%) 2(0.2%) Hallucination 13 (1.5%) 0 21 (2.0%) 4 (0.4%) Insomnia 29 (3.4%) 032 (3.1%) 0 Suicidal ideation 27 (3.1%) 2 (0.2%) 30 (2.9%) 0 Renal andUrinary Disorders Dysuria  6 (0.7%) 0 75 (7.2%) 1 (0.1%) Micturitionurgency 11 (1.3%) 0 35 (3.4%) 0 Pollakiuria 19 (2.2%) 0 71 (6.8%) 2(0.2%) Urinary incontinence 34 (4.0%) 0 63 (6.1%) 1 (0.1%) Respiratory,Thoracic and Mediastinal Disorders Cough 37 (4.3%) 0 42 (4.1%) 0 Skinand Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders Rash 21 (2.4%) 0 30 (2.9%) 0 VascularDisorders Hypertension 20 (2.3%) 0 22 (2.1%) 1 (0.1%)

The TEAEs are further analysed by using groupings of related MedDRA(Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) preferred terms to betterestimate the incidence of potentially treatment related adverse events.The incidence of all groupings for subjects categorised by dose (8mg/day versus higher doses of 150 to 250 mg/day) is shown in thefollowing Table EX2:

TABLE EX2 Incidence of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events groupedLMTM 8mg/day versus Higher Doses (Phase 3, Double-blind, LMTM Pooled SafetyPopulation) LMTM 8 mg/day Higher Doses (150-250 mg/day) TauRx GroupingTerm (N = 860) n (%) (N = 1037) n (%) Affective/Anxiety Symptoms 60(7.0%) 55 (5.3%) Anaemia 111 (12.9%) 219 (21.1%) Behavioral Symptoms 114(13.3%) 118 (11.4%) Falls and Related Terms 188 (21.9%) 202 (19.5%)Hepatic Function Impairment 13 (1.5%) 34 (3.3%) Hypersensitivity 42(4.9%) 63 (6.1%) Ischaemic Events, Inclusive of 20 (2.3%) 35 (3.4%)Myocardial Infarction Psychotic Symptoms 28 (3.3%) 34 (3.3%) RenalFunction Impairment 29 (3.4%) 42 (4.1%) Renal and Urinary Disorders 135(15.7%) 326 (31.4%) (Including Infections) Sleep Disorders 41 (4.8%) 48(4.6%) Targeted Gastrointestinal Events 183 (21.3%) 401 (38.7%)

The groupings occurring in ≥10.0% of subjects treated with LMTM 8 mg/dayinclude falls and related terms (22%), GI events (21%), renal andurinary disorders including infections (16%), behavioural symptoms andterms indicative of anaemia (each grouping in 13%).

There is a dose-related trend for increased incidence for all of these(other than falls and behavioural symptoms). For the less commongroupings, there is also evidence of a dose-related trend for hepaticfunction impairment.

The fact that several TEAEs appear to be dose related clearly indicatesthe desirability of utilising a minimal effective dose of MT.

Example 7— Effect of Cmax on Treatment Effects Using Other Scales

From the data available, the Cmax effect was not seen when assessingTemporal lobe FDG-PET decline. For this measure it appeared that highdose LMTM (pooled 200 mg/day) actually attenuated benefit otherwise seenfor LMTM monotherapy, although some monotherapy benefit remained(results not shown).

From the data available, the Cmax effect was not seen when assessingoutcome measures: Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities ofDaily Living (ADCS-ADL) decline.

Example 8— Providing an Optimised Dosage Regimen in AD SubjectPopulations

In summary a PK model has been developed on the basis of data fromclosely-sampled Phase 1 studies. From this per-subject steady state Cmaxwas estimated and used to split patients taking 8 mg/day dose into high(above median) and low (below median) Cmax groups. Unexpectedly, Highand low Cmax groups differed in cognitive decline (as assessed usingADAS-cog) by ˜2.5 units, with the effect being was observed in bothmonotherapy and add-on treatment groups. Interestingly there wasevidence of an inverse dose-response relationship for FDG-PET at highdoses.

Thus treatment response is determined by two factors:

-   -   1 Monotherapy vs add-on treatment status    -   2 Plasma concentration, which will vary in subject populations        even for a given dose.

For both groups (mono-therapy and add-on) there is therefore benefit indosing at sufficient level to maximise the proportion of subjects in thehigh Cmax group (while also avoiding high dosages which have a lessdesirable clinical profile). FIG. 5 estimates the proportion of subjectsexpected to be in the high Cmax group according to dose.

By Way of Illustration:

At 4 mg bid, 50% of subjects above Cmax threshold, with a predictedtreatment effect relative to placebo ˜5 ADAS-cog units over 65 weeks

By utilising at least 16 mg bid, or more preferably ˜20 mg/day (10 mgbid), for which the estimated proportion is ˜100%, even higher ADAS-cogtreatment effects may be seen.

Thus, based on FIG. 5 , a dosage regimen of higher than 4 mg bid isdesirable. However there is likely to be little benefit in exceedingaround 20 mg bid (40 mg total), since at that level it is estimated thatthe vast majority of the treated subjects will be in the high Cmax groupirrespective of whether the dose is split.

There are at least two distinct reasons for wanting to use the minimalconcentration which maximises the cognitive benefit treatment effect.Firstly TEAEs, most notably GI events, renal and urinary disordersincluding infections, and haemolytic anaemia, occurred in a dose-relatedfashion. Hence avoiding higher dosages than are necessary is clearlydesirable in order to maintain an optimal clinical profile. Secondly,there is evidence of an inverse dose-response relationship for FDG-PETat high doses i.e. that benefit may actually be attenuated at highdoses.

Overall these novel findings indicate that there is benefit in usingslightly higher “low dose” LMT treatments than had previously beenassumed, and further indicate that LMT treatments can be used as add-onto symptomatic treatments (albeit with less effect than formonotherapy).

Example 9—Providing an Optimised Dosage Regimen in bvFTD SubjectPopulations

The trial design for the Phase 3 trial of LMTM in behavioural variantfrontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is described in Examples 3 to 10 ofWO2018/041739, which Examples also discuss those results. The disclosureof those Examples is specifically incorporated herein by reference.

It was concluded in WO2018/041739 that there was less cognitive decline(as assessed using ACE-R) seen at 4 mg b.i.d. and 100 mg b.i.d. thanwould have been predicted from historical studies. This could beexplained if both the 4 mg b.i.d. (the “control” arm) and 100 mg b.i.d.(the “active” arm) demonstrated efficacy.

Furthermore AD-comedication status and severity were found to besignificant covariates. Taking account of these covariates showedsignificant benefits on ACE-R in patients taking LMTM in combinationwith off-label AD treatments (acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and/ormemantine) versus LMTM alone. There also appeared to be directionallysupportive benefits on FAQ, MMSE and temporal volume.

The population PK model described above was used to estimate Cmax ofparent MT in the patients in the bvFTD study. As with the AD trialsdescribed above, the median value at each dose was taken as a thresholdfor dividing patients into “High Cmax” and “Low Cmax” groups.

FIG. 6 shows the distribution of Cmax values in bvFTD. Vertical blackline indicates median dividing low from high Cmax groups.

FIG. 7 shows the difference in decline on Addenbrooke's CognitiveExamination—revised (ACE-R) scale according to Cmax group in bvFTDpatients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day as monotherapy. The decline in Cmax lowgroup was found to be −13.3±1.8 (which is comparable to Kipps et al.,(2008)=−15.3±1.4). However the decline in the Cmax high group was muchreduced (−6.1±1.8). All efficacy analyses are based on an MMRM approach

The difference between the low and high Cmax groups at 32 weeks was4.2±2.0 (p=0.0389) and at 52 weeks 7.3±2.6 (p=0.0059).

As illustrated in FIG. 8 , highly significant difference between Cmaxhigh/low groups for 8 mg/day. For 200 mg/day there appeared actually tobe an inverse dose-response.

FIG. 9 shows the difference in decline on the Functional ActivitiesQuestionnaire (FAQ) scale according to Cmax group in bvFTD patientsreceiving LMTM 8 mg/day as monotherapy. Again decline was lower in thehigh C max group on this scale (decline in Cmax low group at 52 wk:8.3±0.9; decline in Cmax high group at 52 wk: 2.9±0.9; difference at 32weeks: −3.6±1.2 (p=0.0022); difference at 52 weeks:−5.4±1.3 (p<0.0001).

FIG. 10 illustrates that the FAQ benefit seen for high Cmax at 8 mg/dayis greatly reduced at 200 mg/day. Furthermore there is an inversedose-response so that the overall benefit is reduced for 200 mg/day.

FIGS. 11 a, 11 b and 11 c shows the corresponding changes in whole brainvolume (WBV), temporal atrophy and lateral ventricular volume (LVV) inbvFTD patients.

For WBV in FIG. 11 a the decline in Cmax low group at 52 wk was−24.5±2.6 (cm³). The decline in the Cmax high group at 52 wk was−15.3±2.5. The difference at 52 weeks was 9.2±3.5 (p=0.0089).

FIG. 11 b shows the difference in progression fronto-temporal atrophyaccording to Cmax group in bvFTD patients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day asmono (decline in Cmax low group at 52 wk: −2.3±0.2 (cm³); decline inCmax high group at 52 wk: −1.7±0.2; difference at 52 weeks: 0.6±0.3(p=0.0247)).

FIG. 11 c difference in ventricular expansion according to Cmax group inpatients receiving LMTM 8 mg/day as mono (increase in Cmax low group at52 wk: 8.3±0.8 (cm³); increase in Cmax high group at 52 wk: 5.0±0.8;difference at 52 weeks: −3.3±1.1 (p=0.0027)).

Interestingly, in ACE-R, there was again an inverse dose-response forhigh dose, 200 mg/day.

As was concluded in WO2018/041739, this further analysis confirmedadditional benefit from combination with symptomatic treatments, withtriple therapy (MT, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine)potentially offering benefits. For the combined therapy the benefit ofexceeding Cmax (in relation to ACE-R and FAQ) could not be confirmed,having regard to the smaller groups and hence larger error bars in theestimates (data not shown). Furthermore the same data indicated that theaddition of symptomatic treatments overcomes high dose impairment(inverse dose response), at least in relation to these scales (data notshown). Significant MRI volumetric benefits for Cmax were best seen asadd-on therapy (data not shown).

These results confirmed the concentration-response relationship for 8mg/day monotherapy for cognitive function in bvFTD similar to that seenin AD. There was also a concentration-response relationship for 8 mg/daymonotherapy on functional FAQ scale in bvFTD and an inversedose-response for high dose monotherapy (i.e. 200 mg/day was worse than8 mg/day).

Overall, a low dose administered in a regimen ensuring high Cmax (e.g.˜20 mg/day (10 mg bid)) appears to be an optimal monotherapy treatmentfor bvFTD.

However, as previously seen, and in contrast to AD, there is anadditional benefit from combination with symptomatic treatments, whichcan particularly be seen in the low Cmax group.

In light of these factors one regimen may be starting with LMTXmonotherapy at 8 mg/day and then increasing dose to ˜20 mg/day, with thepossibility of adding AD symptomatic treatments in bvFTD as the diseaseprogresses.

Example 10— Further Analyses in Relation to Optimised Dosage Regimen inAD Subject Populations

A more informative approach which permits statistical analyses to beconducted is to categories patients receiving LMTM at a dose of 8 mg/dayon the basis of C_(max,ss) using a threshold that defines the upperlimit of the lowest 35% of patients, corresponding to the 35% ofpatients with plasma levels below the validated limit of quantitation(0.2-10 ng/ml; N=208) following the first dose on day 1. That thresholdwas <0.373 ng/mL.

The remaining 65% were categorized into three C_(max,ss) groups ofcomparable size (N˜128 per group) to permit better visualisation of theconcentration-response relationship. Higher doses were grouped accordingto dose (N=187-329 per group). The model-based estimates of plasmaexposure in these groups, as well as the higher doses, are shown in theTable EX3 below:

TABLE EX3 Plasma-modelled parent MT C_(max, ss) for all patients withavailable plasma data in studies TRx-237-015 and TRx-237-005 accordingto either plasma C_(max, ss) subgroups (LMTM, 8 mg/day) or dose (LMTM,150-250 mg/day): C_(max, ss) (ng/mL) Dose groups n (%) Mean (SD) Range 8mg/day - Group 1 208 (35%) 0.334 (0.0251) 0.257-0.373 8 mg/day - Group 2127 (21%) 0.393 (0.0125) 0.373-0.414 8 mg/day - Group 3 129 (22%) 0.449(0.0189) 0.415-0.478 8 mg/day - Group 4 128 (22%) 0.565 (0.0810)0.479-0.812 150 mg/day  188 (100%) 7.820 (1.787)   5.099-18.611 200mg/day  329 (100%) 10.126 (2.374)   6.557-21.291 250 mg/day  187 (100%)12.573 (2.460)   8.833-21.188

Least squares mean and standard error estimates for change inADAS-cog₁₁, ADCS-ADL₂₃, LVV, and WBV show clear concentration-responsesas a function of C_(max,ss) grouping in patients receiving LMTM at adose of 8 mg/day (FIG. 13 ). There is a general tendency for outcomes tobe worse at the high exposure levels associated with doses in the range150-250 mg/day, implying the existence of a biphasic dose-response.

Example 11— Analyses Based on Critical Therapeutic C_(max,ss) Thresholdof 0.393 ng/ml in Relation to Optimised Dosage Regimen in AD SubjectPopulations

Based on splitting of patients according to the threshold of 0.373ng/ml, the treatment difference in patients receiving the 8 mg/day doseis −3.4 ADAS-cog units (see Table EX4 below; cf. Example 8 concerningmedian split showing about ˜2 to 3 ADAS-cog units):

TABLE EX4 B. Patients receiving LMTM, 8 mg/day, split A. All patientssplit by C_(max,ss) 0.373 ng/mL by C_(max,ss) 0.373 ng/mL Difference ±Difference ± SEM CI p-value N_(low) N_(high) SEM CI p-value N_(low)N_(high) ADAS-cog −2.99 ± 0.67 −4.32 − −1.67 <0.0001 193 969 −3.41 ±0.76 −4.89 − −1.92 <0.0001 193 373 ADCS-ADL  0.54 ± 0.94 −1.30 − 2.38  0.5634 192 967  1.22 ± 1.01 −0.77 − 3.21   0.2283 192 373 LVV (cm³)−1.52 ± 0.34 −2.18 − −0.83 <0.0001 184 863 −1.78 ± 0.38 −2.53 − −1.03<0.0001 184 335 WBV (cm³)  3.55 ± 1.06 1.48 − 5.62  0.0008 180 859  4.39± 1.18 2.07 − 6.71  0.0002 180 332

The corresponding longitudinal trajectories over 65 weeks according toC_(max,ss) above or below the threshold value of 0.373 ng/mL are shownin FIG. 14 .

Since only 65% of patients receiving the 8 mg/day have plasmaconcentrations above the threshold required for significant treatmentbenefit, it is desirable to determine the minimum dose at which 100%patients would be expected to have plasma levels within the therapeuticrange. Given the population variability observed in the large availabledata set, it was possible to estimate the expected percentage ofpatients above the critical therapeutic threshold for C_(max,ss) (0.393ng/ml) and C_(ave,ss) (0.223 ng/ml) according to once daily (QD) andtwice daily (BID) dosing regimes. As can be seen in FIG. 15 , usingeither criterion and dosing regime, LMTM needs to be given at a dose ofat least 16 mg/day for 100% of patients to have plasma levels in thetherapeutic range.

Example 12— Incorporation of Discriminator Between Monotherapy andAdd-on Therapy

A further consideration is whether patients are dosed with LMTM alone orin combination with approved treatments for AD (AChEls and/ormemantine). Patients receiving the 8 mg/day dose were examined furtheraccording co-medication status with these drugs. As can be seen in theTable EX5 below, the differences between patients having steady-stateplasma levels below or above a threshold of 0.373 ng/ml reachstatistical significance whether LMTM is taken as monotherapy or asadd-on therapy on cognitive (ADAS-cog) and brain atrophy (LVV and WBV)endpoints.

TABLE EX5 Comparison of AD patients receiving LMTM, 8 mg/day, withC_(max,ss) above or below parent MT threshold of 0.373 ng/mL:categorized according to AChEI and/or memantine use status at baseline.LMTM, 8 mg/day, as monotherapy LMTM, 8 mg/day, as add-on therapyDifference ± Difference ± SEM CI p-value N_(low) N_(high) SEM CI p-valueN_(low) N_(high) ADAS-cog₁₁ −2.60 ± 1.16 −4.88 − −0.33 0.0251 33 67−3.52 ± 0.78 −5.05 − −2.00 <0.0001 160 306 ADCS-ADL₂₃  0.46 ± 1.47 −2.43− 3.34  0.7552 32 67  1.32 ± 1.04 −0.71 − 3.36   0.2016 160 306 LVV(cm³) −1.46 ± 0.45 −2.33 − −0.58 0.0011 33 61 −1.35 ± 0.37 −2.08 − −0.62 0.0003 151 274 WBV (cm³)  2.76 ± 1.66 −0.49 − 6.01  0.0966 32 61  4.69± 1.21 2.32 − 7.06  0.0001 148 271

The corresponding longitudinal trajectories over 65 weeks areillustrated below for ADAS-cog₁₁, ADCS-ADL₂₃, LVV and WBV in FIG. 16 .

Example 13— Analysis of ADAS-Cog₁₁ Decline Vs. Plasma Concentration

A further analysis of ADAS-cog decline over 65 weeks was undertakenusing a modified form of the Hill equation (Wagner, 1968) in order toestimate the minimum and maximum plasma concentrations for expectedtreatment response over 65 weeks. The Hill equation was applied underthe assumption of non-cooperativity and used an imposed overall zerowhere there was no-effect level was taken as 11 units at a C_(max,ss)concentration of 0.29 ng/ml based on visual inspection of the data. Useof different limiting values did not meaningfully change the results. Inaddition, a linear term was added to permit trends occurring at highconcentrations to be included in the model using data for doses in therange 150-250 mg/day. The expanded Hill equation was applied to the datain the form:

change in parameter=E _(min)−(E _(max)*([C]−−0.29))/(EC₅₀+([C]−0.29))+(A*([C]−0.29))

where E_(min) is the imposed zero value, E_(max) is the maximumtreatment effect assumed in the standard Hill equation, EC₅₀ is theC_(max,ss) at which the treatment effect is 50% of the maximum assumedin the standard Hill equation and A is a further linear term estimatedby the model to take account of a potential biphasic response.C_(max,ss) was also expressed as the estimated equivalent mean doseusing a relationship obtained by fitting a linear model to the meanplasma concentrations at the 8, 150, 200 and 250 mg/day doses:

estimated dose(mg/day)=0.045*C _(max,ss)+0.016

As can be seen from FIG. 17 , there is an overall biphasicconcentration-response for LMTM taken alone or in combination withsymptomatic treatments. The dose range in which the treatment responseis estimated to be maximal is 20-60 mg/day.

Compared with monotherapy, the estimated maximum treatment is reduced byabout 4 ADAS-cog units when LMTM is combined with symptomatictreatments. A further effect is to shift the C_(max,ss) concentrationrequired for half-maximal treatment response to the right from 0.32±0.01ng/ml to 0.40±0.05 ng/ml.

It will be apparent that the effects of plasma concentration andco-medication status are additive. This permits an overall estimate oftreatment benefit comparing patients receiving the 8 mg/day dose asmonotherapy and having plasma levels above the threshold of 0.373 ng/mlwith patients receiving the same dose in combination with symptomatictreatments and having plasma levels below this threshold. As can be seenfrom FIG. 17 , the latter group comes nearest to approximating theminimum measurable treatment response. This analysis shows thattreatment effect for the 8 mg/day dose as monotherapy in patients withtherapeutic plasma levels of the drug is −7.53 (CI−9.93−5.13, p<0.0001)ADAS-cog₁₁ units, with corresponding treatment effects for ADCS-ADL₂₃,LVV and WBV (Table EX6 below):

TABLE EX6 Comparison of LMTM as add-on versus monotherapy and betweenlow C_(max) add-on and high C_(max) monotherapy. Comparison of LMTM, 8mg/day, low C_(max) add-on vs high C_(max) monotherapy Difference ± SEMCI p-value N_(low, add-on) N_(high, mono) ADAS-cog11 −7.53 ± 1.22−9.93-−5.13 <0.0001 160 67 ADCS-ADL23  6.14 ± 1.64 2.93-9.34 0.0002 16067 LVV (cm³) −3.15 ± 0.62 −4.37-−1.93 <0.0001 151 61 WBV (cm³) 11.54 ±1.87  7.88-15.21 <0.0001 148 61

Example 14— Implications of Findings Relating to Monotherapy Vs. Add-onTherapy in Relation to Dosing Regimens

As is evident from the foregoing, there is a reduction in the maximumeffect of LMTM when it is combined with symptomatic treatments. Itshould be noted however, that this relates to a context in whichpatients have received LMTM against a background of chronicpre-treatment with symptomatic drugs. The mechanism of this has beenelucidated in a series of experiments in a well characterised tautransgenic mouse model. If these animals are pretreated chronically witha cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine), almost all of theneurobiological effects seen when LMTM is administered alone are reducedor eliminated entirely, leading to elimination of the beneficial effectof LMTM on spatial learning memory. Pre-treatment with memantinelikewise eliminated the effect on spatial learning memory (results notshown).

The mechanism appears to be a generalised homeostatic downregulationaffecting many synaptic and neurotransmitter systems in the brain thatcounteracts the activating effects of the symptomatic drugs. Thus,LMTM-induced effects are subject to dynamic downregulation if the brainis already subject to prior chronic stimulation by symptomatictreatments.

Example 15— Further Analysis in Relation to Providing an OptimisedDosage Regimen in FTD Subject Populations

The cut-off that defined the upper limit of the lowest 35% group(corresponding to the percentage of patients with plasma levels belowthe validated limit of quantitation in Day 1) was 0.346 ng/ml for thebvFTD population.

As for AD (see Example 10) the remainder with Day 1 plasma levels withinthe validated range of quantitation at the 8 mg/day dose weredistributed in 3 groups having approximately equal numbers (22% each;see Table EX7 below).

TABLE EX7 Plasma-modelled parent MT C_(max, ss) for LMTM groupsC_(max, ss) (ng/mL) Dose groups n (%) Mean (SD) Range 8 mg/day 8mg/day - Group 1 32 (35%) 0.321 (0.0198) 0.281-0.346 8 mg/day - Group 220 (22%) 0.355 (0.0082) 0.346-0.372 8 mg/day - Group 3 19 (21%) 0.387(0.0121) 0.373-0.409 8 mg/day - Group 4 20 (22%) 0.470 (0.0537)0.413-0.583 200 mg/day 81 9.040 (1.6259) 6.800-14.235

There is a similar concentration-response relationship for measures ofprogression of brain atrophy by MRI (frontotemporal volume, lateralventricular volume, whole brain volume). This is shown in FIG. 18 .

Alternative efficacy analyses were performed in which the group ofpatients with minimal systemic exposure to the drug was used as a proxyfor placebo. These are shown in the Table EX8 below and illustrated inFIG. 19 .

Example 16— Analysis of Chance in Outcomes Vs. Plasma Concentration

As can be seen from FIG. 18 above, treatment effects were worse at thehigh dose of 200 mg/day on all outcomes, implying a biphasicconcentration-response relationship in bvFTD.

As for AD, an expanded Hill equation was applied under the assumption ofnon-cooperativity and used imposed overall zero values where theno-effect level was taken as −12 ACE-R units, 8 FAQ units or −30 cm³ forwhole brain volume at a C_(max,ss) concentration of 0.29 ng/ml based onvisual inspection of the data. Use of different limiting values did notmeaningfully change the results. In addition, a linear term was added topermit trends occurring at high concentrations to be included in themodel using mean decline occurring at the 200 mg/day dose.

The expanded Hill equation provided a robust fit to the meanconcentration-response for change in ACE-R, FAQ and whole brain volumeover 52 weeks. The model fit for all outcomes is consistent with theassumption that the lower limiting plasma concentration required fortreatment response is 0.29 ng/ml in patients receiving the 8 mg/daydose. Subgrouping the whole brain volume data in patients receiving the200 mg/day dose into terciles (FIG. 20 ) made it possible to estimatethe maximum limiting concentration at which the treatment effect waslost, namely 13.57 ng/ml (corresponding to a predicted dose of 301mg/day).

TABLE EX8 Comparison of patients categorized by above (“high”) or below(“low”) parent MT threshold of 0.346 ng/mL All patients Patientsreceiving LMTM 8 mg/day Difference ± Difference ± Decline ± SEM for SEMfor SEM for C_(max,ss) > C_(max,ss) > C_(max,ss) ≤ 0.346 ng/ml CIp-value N_(low) N_(high) 0.346 ng/ml CI p-value N_(low) N_(high) 0.346ng/ml ACE-R 1.37 ± 2.60 −3.73 − 6.47  0.5973 31 125 5.06 ± 2.62 −0.08 −10.21  0.0536 31 57 −11.33 ± 2.09   FAQ −2.98 ± 1.10  −5.15 − −0.820.0069 31 114 −3.27 ± 1.32  −5.85 − −0.69  0.0131 31 57 7.13 ± 1.06 WBV9.05 ± 3.06  3.06 − 15.04 0.0031 28 112 11.67 ± 3.41   5.00 − 18.36 0.0006 28 51 −27.72 ± 2.73   (cm³) LVV −3.41 ± −0.95 −5.27 − −1.550.0003 28 104 −4.12 ± 1.06  −6.19 − −2.05 <0.0001 28 45 9.13 ± 0.82(cm³) FTV 0.73 ± 0.24 0.26 − 1.19 0.0023 28 112 0.72 ± 0.27 0.19 − 1.26 0.0076 28 51 −2.47 ± 0.22  (cm³)

References for Discussion of Background Art

Alzheimer A. Über eine eigenartige Erkrankung der Hirnrinde. Allg ZPsych Psych-gerich Med 1907; 64: 146-8 [German].

Alzheimer's Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2015: Theglobal impact of dementia, an analysis of prevalence, incidence, costand trends. World Alzheimer Report 2015.

Arriagada P W, Growdon J H, Hedley-White E T, Hyman B T. Neurofibrillarytangles but not senile plaques parallel duration and severity ofAlzheimer's disease. Neurology 1992; 42: 631-9.

Baddeley T, C., McCaffrey J, Storey J M D, et al. Complex disposition ofmethylthioninium redox forms determines efficacy in tau aggregationinhibitor therapy for Alzheimer's disease. J Pharmacol ExptlTherapeutics 2015; 352: 110-8.

Braak H, Del Tredici K. The pathological process underlying Alzheimer'sdisease in individuals under thirty. Acta Neuropathol 2011; 121: 171-81.

Brier M R, Gordon B, Friedrichsen K, et al. Tau and Aβ imaging, CSFmeasures, and cognition in Alzheimer's disease. Science Transl Med 2016;8: 338ra66.

DiSanto A R, Wagner J G. Pharmacokinetics of highly ionized drugs. I I.Methylene blue-absorption, metabolism, and excretion in man and dogafter oral administration. J Pharmaceut Sci 1972; 61: 1086-90.

Geerts H, Spiros A, Roberts P, Carr R. A strategy for developing newtreatment paradigms for neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive symptoms inAlzheimer's disease. Front Pharmacol 2013; 4: 47.

Giannakopoulos P, Herrmann F R, Bussiere T, et al. Tangle and neuronnumbers, but not amyloid load, predict cognitive status in Alzheimer'sdisease. Neurology 2003; 60: 1495-500.

Harrington C R, Storey J M D, Clunas S, et al. Cellular models ofaggregation-dependent template-directed proteolysis to characterize tauaggregation inhibitors for treatment of Alzheimer's disease. J Biol Chem2015; 290: 10862-75.

Huang Y, Mucke L. Alzheimer mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Cell2012; 148: 1204-22.

Josephs K A, Whitwell J L, Ahmed Z, et al. b-Amyloid burden is notassociated with rates of brain atrophy. Ann Neurol 2008; 63: 204-12.

Lai R Y K, Harrington C R, Wischik C M. Absence of a role forphosphorylation in the tau pathology of Alzheimer's disease.Biomolecules 2016; 6: 19.

Maruyama M, Shimada H, Suhara T, et al. Imaging of tau pathology in atauopathy mouse model and in Alzheimer patients compared to normalcontrols. Neuron 2013; 79: 1094-108.

May J M, Qu Z-c, Cobb C E. Reduction and uptake of methylene blue byhuman erythrocytes. Am J Physiol—Cell Physiol 2004; 286: C1390-8.

Melis V, Magbagbeolu M, Rickard J E, et al. Effects of oxidized andreduced forms of methylthioninium in two transgenic mouse tauopathymodels. Behav Pharmacol 2015; 26: 353-68.

Mukaetova-Ladinska E B, Garcia-Sierra F, Hurt J, et al. Staging ofcytoskeletal and b-amyloid changes in human isocortex reveals biphasicsynaptic protein response during progression of Alzheimer's disease. AmJ Pathol 2000; 157: 623-36.

Mullane K, Williams M. Alzheimer's therapeutics: Continued clinicalfailures question the validity of the amyloid hypothesis—but what liesbeyond? Biochem Pharmacol 2013; 85: 289-305.

Peter C, Hongwan D, Küpfer A, Lauterburg B H. Pharmacokinetics and organdistribution of intravenous and oral methylene blue. Eur J ClinPharmacol 2000; 56: 247-50.

Schneider A, Biernat J, von Bergen M, Mandelkow E, Mandelkow E-M.Phosphorylation that detaches tau protein from microtubules (Ser262,Ser214) also protects it against aggregation into Alzheimer pairedhelical filaments. Biochemistry 1999; 38: 3549-58.

Winblad B, Amouyel P, Andrieu S, et al. Defeating Alzheimer's diseaseand other dementias: a priority for European science and society. LancetNeurol 2016; 15: 455-532.

Wischik C M, Crowther R A, Stewart M, Roth M. Subunit structure ofpaired helical filaments in Alzheimer's disease. J Cell Biol 1985; 100:1905-12.

Wischik C M, Edwards P C, Lai R Y K, et al. Quantitative analysis of tauprotein in paired helical filament preparations: implications for therole of tau protein phosphorylation in PHF assembly in Alzheimer'sdisease. Neurobiol Aging 1995; 16: 409-31.

Wischik C M, Edwards P C, Lai R Y K, Roth M, Harrington C R. Selectiveinhibition of Alzheimer disease-like tau aggregation by phenothiazines.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 11213-8.

Wischik C M, Harrington C R, Storey J M D. Tau-aggregation inhibitortherapy for Alzheimer's disease. Biochem Pharmacol 2014; 88: 529-39.

Wischik C M, Novak M, Edwards P C, Klug A, Tichelaar W, Crowther R A.Structural characterization of the core of the paired helical filamentof Alzheimer disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988; 85: 4884-8.

Wischik C M, Novak M, Thogersen H C, et al. Isolation of a fragment oftau derived from the core of the paired helical filament of Alzheimer'sdisease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988; 85: 4506-10.

Wischik C M, Staff R T, Wischik D J, et al. Tau aggregation inhibitortherapy: an exploratory phase 2 study in mild or moderate Alzheimer'sdisease. J Alzheimer's Dis 2015; 44: 705-20.

Wischik C M, Wischik D J, Storey J M D, Harrington C R. Rationale fortau aggregation inhibitor therapy in Alzheimer's disease and othertauopathies. In: Martinez A, ed. Emerging drugs and targets forAlzheimer's disease Volume 1: Beta-amyloid, tau protein and glucosemetabolism. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2010: 210-32.

References for Proteins Involved in Diseases of Protein Aggregation

Abrahamson, M., Jonsdottir, S., Olafsson, I. & Grubb, A. (1992)Hereditary cystatin C amyloid angiopathy identification of thedisease-causing mutation and specific diagnosis by polymerase chainreaction based analysis. Human Genetics 89, 377-380.

Andersen, P. (2006) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis associated withmutations in the CuZn superoxide dismutase gene. Current Neurology andNeuroscience Reports 6, 37-46.

Arai, T., Hasegawa, M., Nonoka, T., Kametani, F., Yamashita, M.,Hosokawa, M., Niizato, K., Tsuchiya, K., Kobayashi, Z., Ikeda, K.,Yoshida, M., Onaya, M., Fujishiro, H. & Akiyama, H. (2010)Phosphorylated and cleaved TDP-43 in ALS, FTLD and otherneurodegenerative disorders and in cellular models of TDP-43proteinopathy. Neuropathology 30, 170-181.

Askanas, V., Engel, W. K. & Nogalska, A. (2009) Inclusion body myositis:a degenerative muscle disease associated with intra-muscle fibermulti-protein aggregates, proteasome inhibition, endoplasmic reticulumstress and decreased lysosomal degradation. Brain Pathology 19, 493-506.

Barmada, S. J., Skibinski, G., Korb, E., Rao, E. J., Wu, J. Y. &Finkbeiner, S. (2010) Cytoplasmic mislocalization of TDP-43 is toxic toneurons and enhanced by a mutation associated with familial amyotrophiclateral sclerosis. Journal of Neuroscience 30, 639-649.

Blair, I. P., Williams, K. L., Warraich, S. T., Durnall, J. C., Thoeng,A. D., Manavis, J., Blumbergs, P. C., Vucic, S., Kiernan, M. C. &Nicholson, G. A. (2010) FUS mutations in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis:clinical, pathological, neurophysiological and genetic analysis. Journalof Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 81, 639-645.

Booth, D. R., Sunde, M., Bellotti, V., Robinson, C. V., Hutchinson, W.L., Fraser, P. E., Hawkins, P. N., Dobson, C. M., Radford, S. E., Blake,C. C. F. & Pepys, M. B. (1997) Instability, unfolding and aggregation ofhuman lysozyme variants underlying amyloid fibrillogenesis. Nature 385,787-793.

Byrne, S., Walsh, C., Lynch, C., Bede, P., Elamin, M., Kenna, K.,McLaughlin, R. & Hardiman, 0. (2011) Rate of familial amyotrophiclateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal ofNeurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 82, 623-627.

Carrell, R. W. & Gooptu, B. (1998) Conformational changes anddisease—serpins, prions and Alzheimer's. Current Opinion in StructuralBiology 8, 799-809.

Chen-Plotkin, A. S., Lee, V. M. Y. & Trojanowski, J. Q. (2010) TARDNA-binding protein 43 in neurodegenerative disease. Nature ReviewsNeurology 6, 211-220.

Chiti, F., Webster, P., Taddei, N., Clark, A., Stafani, M., Ramponi, G.& Dobson, C. (1999) Designing conditions for in vitro formation ofamyloid protofilaments and fibrils. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, USA 96, 3590-3594.

Cox, L. E., Ferraiuolo, L., Goodall, E. F., Heath, P. R., Higginbottom,A., Mortiboys, H., Hollinger, H. C., Hartley, J. A., Brockington, A.,Burness, C. E., Morrison, K. E., Wharton, S. B., Grierson, A. J., Ince,P. G., Kirby, J. & Shaw, P. J. (2010) Mutations in CHMP2B in lower motorneuron predominant amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). PLOS One 5,e9872.

Czech, C., Tremp, G. & Pradier, L. (2000) Presenilins and Alzheimer'sdisease: biological functions and pathogenic mechanisms. Progress inNeurobiology 60, 363-384.

Davis, R. L., Shrimpton, A. E., Holohan, P. D., Bradshaw, C., Feiglin,D., Collins, G. H., Sonderegger, P., Kinter, J., Becker, L. M.,Lacbawan, F., Krasnewich, D., Muenke, M., Lawrence, D. A., Yerby, M. S.,Shaw, C.-M., Gooptu, B., Elliott, P. R., Finch, J. T., Carrell, R. W. &Lomas, D. A. (1999) Familial dementia caused by polymerization of mutantneuroserpin. Nature 401, 376-379.

DiFiglia, M., Sapp, E., Chase, K. O., Davies, S. W., Bates, G. P.,Vonsattel, J. P. & Aronin, N. (1997) Aggregation of huntingtin inneuronal intranuclear inclusions and dystrophic neurites in brain.Science 277, 1990-1993.

Dische, F. E., Wernstedt, C., Westermark, G. T., Westermark, P., Pepys,M. B., Rennie, J. A., Gilbey, S. G. & Watkins, P. J. (1988) Insulin asan amyloid-fibril protein at sites of repeated insulin injections in adiabetic patient. Diabetologia 31, 158-161.

Elden, A. C., Kim, H.-J., Hart, M. P., Chen-Plotkin, A. S., Johnson, B.S., Fang, X., Armakola, M., Geser, F., Greene, R., Lu, M. M.,Padmanabhan, A., Clay-Falcone, D., McCluskey, L., Elman, L., Juhr, D.,Gruber, P. J., Rub, U., Auburger, G., Trojanowski, J. Q., Lee, V. M. Y.,Van Deerlin, V. M., Bonini, N. M. & Gitler, A. D. (2010) Ataxin-2intermediate-length polyglutamine expansions are associated withincreased risk for ALS. Nature 466, 1069-1075.

Finsterer, J (2009) Mitochondrial disorders, cognitive impairment anddementia. J. Neurol. Sci. 283:143-148

Gasset, M., Bladwin, M. A., Lloyd, D. H., Gabriel, J.-M., Holtzman, D.M., Cohen, F. E., Fletterick, R. & Prusiner, S. B. (1992) Predicteda-helical region of the prion protein when synthesized as peptides formamyloid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 89,10940-10944.

Gendron, T. F., Josephs, K. A. & Petrucelli, L. (2010) Review:Transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43): mechanisms ofneurodegeneration. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology 36, 97-112.

Geser, F., Lee, V. M.-Y. & Trojanowski, J. Q. (2010) Amyotrophic lateralsclerosis and frontotemporal lobar degeneration: A spectrum of TDP-43proteinopathies. Neuropathology 30, 103-112.

Gitcho, M. A., Baloh, R. H., Chakraverty, S., Mayo, K., Norton, J. B.,Levitch, D., Hatanpaa, K. J., White, C. L., Ill, Bigio, E. H., Caselli,R., Baker, M., Al-Lozi, M. T., Morris, J. C., Pestronk, A., Rademakers,R., Goate, A. M. & Cairns, N. J. (2008) TDP-43 A315T mutation infamilial motor neuron disease. Annals of Neurology 63, 535-538.

Glenner, G. G. & Wong, C. W. (1984) Alzheimer's disease: initial reportof the purification and characterisation of a novel cerebrovascularamyloid protein. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications120, 885-890.

Goate, A., Chartier-Harlin, M.-C., Mullan, M., Brown, J., Crawford, F.,Fidani, L., Giuffra, L., Haynes, A., Irving, N., James, L., Mant, R.,Newton, P., Rooke, K., Rogues, P., Talbot, C., Pericak-Vance, M., Roses,A., Williamson, R., Rossor, M., Owen, M. & Hardy, J. (1991) Segregationof a missense mutation in the amyloid precursor protein gene withfamilial Alzheimer's disease. Nature 349, 704-706.

Gorevic, P. D., Casey, T. T., Stone, W. J., DiRaimondo, C. R., Prelli,F. C. & Frangione, B. (1985) b-2 Microglobulin is an amyloidogenicprotein in man. Journal of Clinical Investigation 76, 2425-2429.

Gustaysson, A., Engstrom, U. & Westermark, P. (1991) Normaltransthyretin and synthetic transthyretin fragments form amyloid-likefibrils in vitro. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications175, 1159-1164.

Higashi, S., Tsuchiya, Y., Araki, T., Wada, K. & Kabuta, T. (2010)TDP-43 physically interacts with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-linkedmutant CuZn superoxide dismutase. Neurochemistry International 57,906-913.

Hutton, M., Lendon, C., Rizzu, P., Baker, M., Froelich, S., Houlden, H.,Pickering-Brown, S., Chakraverty, S., Isaacs, A., Grover, A., Hackett,J., Adamson, J., Lincoln, S., Dickson, D., Davies, P., Petersen, R. C.,Stevens, M., de Graaf, E., Wauters, E., van Baren, J., Hillebrand, M.,Joosse, M., Kwon, J. M., Nowotny, P., Che, L. K., Norton, J., Morris, J.C., Reed, L. A., Trojanowski, J. O., Basun, H., Lannfelt, L., Neystat,M., Fahn, S., Dark, F., Tannenberg, T., Dodd, P. R., Hayward, N., Kwok,J. B. J., Schofield, P. R., Andreadis, A., Snowden, J., Craufurd, D.,Neary, D., Owen, F., Oostra, B. A., Hardy, J., Goate, A., van Swieten,J., Mann, D., Lynch, T. & Heutink, P. (1998) Association of missense and5′-splice-site mutations in tau with the inherited dementia FTDP-17.Nature 393, 702-705.

Igaz, L. M., Kwong, L. K., Chen-Plotkin, A., Winton, M. J., Unger, T.L., Xu, Y., Neumann, M., Trojanowski, J. Q. & Lee, V. M. Y. (2009)Expression of TDP-43 C-terminal fragments in vitro recapitulatespathological features of TDP-43 proteinopathies. Journal of BiologicalChemistry 284, 8516-8524.

Jinwal, U K, Miyata, Y, Koren, J, Ill, Jones, J R, Trotter, J H et al.(2009) Chemical manipulation of Hsp70 ATPase activity regulates taustability. J. Neurosci. 29:12079-12088

Johansson, B., Wernstedt, C. & Westermark, P. (1987) Atrial natriureticpeptide deposited as atrial amyloid fibrils. Biochemical and BiophysicalResearch Communications 148, 1087-1092.

Johnson, B. S., McCaffery, J. M., Lindquist, S. & Gitler, A. D. (2008) Ayeast TDP-43 proteinopathy model: Exploring the molecular determinantsof TDP-43 aggregation and cellular toxicity. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 105, 6439-6444.

Johnson, B. S., Snead, D., Lee, J. J., McCaffery, J. M., Shorter, J. &Gitler, A. D. (2009) TDP-43 is intrinsically aggregation-prone, andamyotrophic lateral sclerosis-linked mutations accelerate aggregationand increase toxicity. Journal of Biological Chemistry 284, 20329-20339.

Johnson, J. O., Mandrioli, J., Benatar, M., Abramzon, Y., Van Deerlin,V. M., Trojanowski, J. Q., Gibbs, J. R., Brunetti, M., Gronka, S., Wuu,J., Ding, J., McCluskey, L., Martinez-Lage, M., Falcone, D., Hernandez,D. G., Arepalli, S., Chong, S., Schymick, J. C., Rothstein, J., Landi,F., Wang, Y.-D., Calvo, A., Mora, G., Sabatelli, M., Monsurró, M. R.,Battistini, S., Salvi, F., Spataro, R., Sola, P., Borghero, G., Galassi,G., Scholz, S. W., Taylor, J. P., Restagno, G., Chió, A. & Traynor, B.J. (2010) Exome sequencing reveals VCP mutations as a cause of familialALS. Neuron 68, 857-864.

Kabashi, E., Lin, L., Tradewell, M. L., Dion, P. A., Bercier, V.,Bourgouin, P., Rochefort, D., Bel Hadj, S., Durham, H. D., Velde, C. V.,Rouleau, G. A. & Drapeau, P. (2010) Gain and loss of function ofALS-related mutations of TARDBP (TDP-43) cause motor deficits in vivo.Human Molecular Genetics 19, 671-683.

Kabashi, E., Valdmanis, P. N., Dion, P., Spiegelman, D., McConkey, B.J., Velde, C. V., Bouchard, J.-P., Lacomblez, L., Pochigaeva, K.,Salachas, F., Pradat, P.-F., Camu, W., Meininger, V., Dupre, N. &Rouleau, G. A. (2008) TARDBP mutations in individuals with sporadic andfamilial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Nature Genetics 40, 572-574.

Ling, S.-C., Albuquerque, C. P., Han, J. S., Lagier-Tourenne, C.,Tokunaga, S., Zhou, H. & Cleveland, D. W. (2010) ALS-associatedmutations in TDP-43 increase its stability and promote TDP-43 complexeswith FUS/TLS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107,13318-13323.

Lomas, D. A., Evans, D. L., Finch, J. T. & Carrell, R. W. (1992) Themechanism of Z a1-antitrypsin accumulation in the liver. Nature 357,605-607.

Love, S., Bridges, L. R. & Case, C. P. (1995) Neurofibrillary tangles inNiemann-Pick disease type C. Brain 118, 119-129.

Mackenzie, I. R. A., Bigio, E. H., Ince, P. G., Geser, F., Neumann, M.,Cairns, N. J., Kwong, L. K., Forman, M. S., Ravits, J., Stewart, H.,Eisen, A., McClusky, L., Kretzschmar, H. A., Monoranu, C. M., Highley,J. R., Kirby, J., Siddique, T., Shaw, P. J., Lee, V. M. Y. &Trojanowski, J. Q. (2007) Pathological TDP-43 distinguishes sporadicamyotrophic lateral sclerosis from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis withSOD1 mutations. Annals of Neurology 61, 427-434.

Mackenzie, I. R. A., Rademakers, R. & Neumann, M. (2010) TDP-43 and FUSin amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. The LancetNeurology 9, 995-1007.

Maury, C. P. & Baumann, M. (1990) Isolation and characterization ofcardiac amyloid in familial amyloid polyneuropathy type IV (Finnish):relation of the amyloid protein to variant gelsolin. Biochimica etBiophysica Acta 1096, 84-86.

Neary, D., Snowden, J. S., Gustafson, L., Passant, U., Stuss, D., Black,S., Freedman, M., Kertesz, A., Robert, P. H., Albert, M., Boone, K.,Miller, B. L., Cummings, J. & Benson, D. F. (1998) Frontotemporal lobardegeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 51,1546-1554.

Neumann, M. (2009) Molecular neuropathology of TDP-43 proteinopathies.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10, 232-246.

Neumann, M., Sampathu, D. M., Kwong, L. K., Truax, A. C., Micsenyi, M.C., Chou, T. T., Bruce, J., Schuck, T., Grossman, M., Clark, C. M.,McCluskey, L. F., Miller, B. L., Masliah, E., Mackenzie, I. R., Feldman,H., Feiden, W., Kretzschmar, H. A., Trojanowski, J. Q. & Lee, V. M. Y.(2006) Ubiquitinated TDP-43 in frontotemporal lobar degeneration andamyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Science 314, 130-133.

Nonaka, T., Kametani, F., Arai, T., Akiyama, H. & Hasegawa, M. (2009)Truncation and pathogenic mutations facilitate the formation ofintracellular aggregates of TDP-43. Human Molecular Genetics 18,3353-3364.

Ohmi, K., Kudo, L. C., Ryazantsev, S., Zhao, H.-Z., Karsten, S. L. &Neufeld, E. F. (2009) Sanfilippo syndrome type B, a lysosomal storagedisease, is also a tauopathy. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 106, 8332-8337.

Orr, H. T. & Zoghbi, H. Y. (2007) Trinucleotide repeat disorders. AnnualReview of Neuroscience 30, 575-621.

Paulson, H. L. (1999) Human genetics '99: trinucleotide repeats.American Journal of Human Genetics 64, 339-345.

Pepys, M. B., Hawkins, P. N., Booth, D. R., Vigushin, D. M., Tennent, G.A., Soutar, A. K., Totty, N., Nguyen, O., Blake, C. C. F., Terry, C. J.,Feest, T. G., Zalin, A. M. & Hsuan, J. J. (1993) Human lysozyme genemutations cause hereditary systemic amyloidosis. Nature 362, 553-557.

Polymeropoulos, M. H., Lavedan, C., Leroy, E., Ide, S. E., Dehejia, A.,Dutra, A., Pike, B., Root, H., Rubenstein, J., Boyer, R., Stenroos, E.S., Chandrasekharappa, S., Athanassiadou, A., Papaetropoulos, T.,Johnson, W. G., Lazzarini, A. M., Duvoisin, R. C., Di lorio, G., Golbe,L. I. & Nussbaum, R. L. (1997) Mutation in the a-synuclein geneidentified in families with Parkinson's disease. Science 276, 2045-2047.

Prusiner, S. B., Scott, M. R., DeArmond, S. J. & Cohen, F. E. (1998)Prion protein biology. Cell 93, 337-348.

Seetharaman, S. V., Prudencio, M., Karch, C., Holloway, S. P., Borchelt,D. R. & Hart, P. J. (2009) Immature copper-zinc superoxide dismutase andfamilial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Experimental Biology andMedicine 234, 1140-1154.

Seilhean, D., Cazeneuve, C., Thuries, V., Russaouen, O., Millecamps, S.,Salachas, F., Meininger, V., LeGuern, E. & Duyckaerts, C. (2009)Accumulation of TDP-43 and α-actin in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosispatient with the K171 ANG mutation Acta Neuropathologica 118, 561-573.

Shibata, N., Hirano, A., Kobayashi, M., Siddique, T., Deng, H. X., Hung,W. Y., Kato, T. & Asayama, K. (1996) Intense superoxide dismutase-1immunoreactivity in intracytoplasmic hyaline inclusions of familialamyotrophic lateral sclerosis with posterior column involvement. Journalof Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology 55, 481-490.

Sletten, K., Westermark, P. & Natvig, J. B. (1976) Characterization ofamyloid fibril proteins from medullary carcinoma of the thyroid. Journalof Experimental Medicine 143, 993-998.

Spillantini, M. G., Crowther, R. A., Jakes, R., Hasegawa, M. & Goedert,M. (1998) a-Synuclein in filamentous inclusions of Lewy bodies fromParkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, USA 95, 6469-6473.

Sreedharan, J., Blair, I. P., Tripathi, V. B., Hu, X., Vance, C.,Rogelj, B., Ackerley, S., Durnall, J. C., Williams, K. L., Buratti, E.,Baralle, F., de Belleroche, J., Mitchell, J. D., Leigh, P. N.,Al-Chalabi, A., Miller, C. C., Nicholson, G. & Shaw, C. E. (2008) TDP-43mutations in familial and sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Science 319, 1668-1672.

Uemichi, T., Liuepnicks, J. J. & Benson, M. D. (1994) Hereditary renalamyloidosis with a novel variant fibrinogen. Journal of ClinicalInvestigation 93, 731-736.

van Bebber, F., Paquet, D., Hruscha, A., Schmid, B. & Haass, C. (2010)Methylene blue fails to inhibit Tau and polyglutamine protein dependenttoxicity in zebrafish. Neurobiology of Disease 39, 265-271.

Vance, C., Rogelj, B., Hortobagyi, T., De Vos, K. J., Nishimura, A. L.,Sreedharan, J., Hu, X., Smith, B., Ruddy, D., Wright, P., Ganesalingam,J., Williams, K. L., Tripathi, V., Al-Saraj, S., Al-Chalabi, A., Leigh,P. N., Blair, I. P., Nicholson, G., de Belleroche, J., Gallo, J.-M.,Miller, C. C. & Shaw, C. E. (2009) Mutations in FUS, an RNA processingprotein, cause familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis type 6. Science323, 1208-1211.

Westermark, P., Engstrom, U., Johnson, K. H., Westermark, G. T. &Betsholtz, C. (1990) Islet amyloid polypeptide: pinpointing amino acidresidues linked to amyloid fibril formation. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, USA 87, 5036-5040.

Westermark, P., Johnson, K. H. & Pitkanen, P. (1985) Systemicamyloidosis: A review with emphasis on pathogenesis. Applied Physiology3, 55-68.

Westermark, P., Johnson, K. H., O'Brien, T. D. & Betsholtz, C. (1992)Islet amyloid polypeptide—a novel controversy in diabetes research.Diabetologia 35, 297-303.

Wijesekera, L. & Leigh, P. N. (2009) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 4, 3.

Wischik, C. M., Novak, M., Thogersen, H. C., Edwards, P. C., Runswick,M. J., Jakes, R., Walker, J. E., Milstein, C., M., R. & Klug, A. (1988)Isolation of a fragment of tau derived from the core of the pairedhelical filament of Alzheimer's disease. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, USA 85, 4506-4510.

Yamashita, M., Nonaka, T., Arai, T., Kametani, F., Buchman, V. L.,Ninkina, N., Bachurin, S. O., Akiyama, H., Goedert, M. & Hasegawa, M.(2009) Methylene blue and dimebon inhibit aggregation of TDP-43 incellular models. FEBS Letters 583, 2419-2424.

Zhang, Y.-J., Xu, Y.-F., Cook, C., Gendron, T. F., Roettges, P., Link,C. D., Lin, W.-L., Tong, J., Castanedes-Casey, M., Ash, P., Gass, J.,Rangachari, V., Buratti, E., Baralle, F., Golde, T. E., Dickson, D. W. &Petrucelli, L. (2009) Aberrant cleavage of TDP-43 enhances aggregationand cellular toxicity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106, 7607-7612.

References for Examples

Gauthier, S., Feldman, H. H., Schneider, L. S., Wilcock, G. K., Frisoni,G. B., Hardlund, J. H., Moebius, H. J., Bentham, P., Kook, K. A.,Wischik, D. J., Schelter, B. O., Davis, C. S., Staff, R. T., Bracoud,L., Shamsi, K., Storey, J. M. D., Harrington, C. R. & Wischik, C. M.(2016) Efficacy and safety of tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy inpatients with mild or moderate

Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind,parallel-arm, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 388, 2873-2884.

Wilcock, G. K., Gauthier, S., Frisoni, G. B., Jia, J., Hardlund, J. H.,Moebius, H. J., Bentham, P., Kook, K. A., Schelter, B. O., Wischik, D.J., Davis, C. S., Staff, R. T., Vuksanovic, V., Ahearn, T., Bracoud, L.,Shamsi, K., Marek, K., Seibyl, J., Reidel, G., Storey, J. M. D.,Harrington, C. R. & Wischik, C. M. (2018) Potential of low doseleuco-methylthioninium bis(hydromethanesulphonate) (LMTM) monotherapyfor treatment of mild Alzheimer's disease: cohort analysis as modifiedprimary outcome in a phase 3 clinical trial. Journal of Alzheimer'sDisease 61, 635-657.

Kipps, C. M., Nestor, P. J., Dawson, C. E., Mitchell, J., Hodges, J. R.(2008) Measuring progression in frontotemporal dementia: Implicationsfor therapeutic interventions. Neurology 70:2046-2052.

Wagner J G. Kinetics of pharmacologic response I. Proposed relationshipsbetween response and drug concentration in the intact animal and man. JTheor Biol. 1968; 20(2):173-201.

1.-71. (canceled)
 72. A method of therapeutic treatment of aneurodegenerative disorder of protein aggregation in a human subject,which method comprises orally administering to said subject amethylthioninium (MT)-containing compound, wherein said administrationprovides a total daily dose of between 20.5 and 60 mg of MT to thesubject per day, optionally split into 2 or more doses, wherein theMT-containing compound is an LMTX compound of the following formula:

wherein each of H_(n)A and H_(n)B (where present) are protic acids whichmay be the same or different, wherein p=1 or 2; q=0 or 1; n=1 or 2;(p+q)×n=2, wherein said neurodegenerative disorder is behavioral-variantfrontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and wherein the therapeutic treatmentis not combined with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
 73. A method as claimed inclaim 72, wherein the total daily dose is between 20.5 and 40 mg.
 74. Amethod as claimed in claim 73, wherein the total daily dosage is 21 to40 mg; 21 to 32 mg; or 24 to 32 mg.
 75. A method as claimed in claim 73,wherein the total daily dose is about 30 mg.
 76. A method as claimed inclaim 72, wherein the total daily dose of the MT-containing compound isadministered as a split dose twice a day or three times a day.
 77. Amethod as claimed in claim 72, wherein the subject: (a) has nothistorically received treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitoror an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, or (b) has historicallyreceived treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, but ceased that treatment atleast 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 weeks prior to treatment with theMT-containing compound, or (c) is selected as one who is receivingtreatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, wherein said treatment with theacetylcholinesterase inhibitor and/or N-methyl-D-aspartate receptorantagonist is discontinued prior to treatment with the MT-containingcompound.
 78. A method as claimed in claim 72, wherein the treatment ispart of a treatment regimen which comprises: (i) orally administering tosaid subject the MT-containing compound for a first period of time,wherein said administration provides a total daily dose of between 1 and10 mg of MT to the subject per day; (ii) orally administering to saidsubject the MT-containing compound for a further period of time, whereinsaid administration provides a total daily dose of between, 20.5 and 60mg of MT to the subject per day.
 79. A method of prophylactic treatmentof a neurodegenerative disorder of protein aggregation in a humansubject, which method comprises orally administering to said patient anMT-containing compound, wherein said administration provides a totaldaily dose of between 20.5 and 60 mg of MT to the subject per day,optionally split into 2 or more doses, wherein the MT-containingcompound is an LMTX compound of the following formula:

wherein each of H_(n)A and H_(n)B (where present) are protic acids whichmay be the same or different, wherein p=1 or 2; q=0 or 1; n=1 or 2;(p+q)×n=2, wherein said neurodegenerative disorder is behavioral-variantfrontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and wherein the prophylactic treatmentis not combined with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or anN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
 80. A method as claimed inclaim 79, wherein the subject has been assessed as being susceptible to,or at risk of, the disorder, optionally based on familial or genetic orother data.
 81. A method as claimed in claim 72, wherein: (a) thecompound has the following formula, where HA and HB are differentmono-protic acids:

or (b) the compound has the following formula, wherein each of H_(n)X isa protic acid:

or (c) the compound has the following formula and H₂A is a di-proticacid:


82. A method as claimed in claim 81, wherein the MT-containing compoundhas the following formula and is a bis-monoprotic acid salt:


83. A method as claimed in claim 72, wherein the or each protic acid isan inorganic acid.
 84. A method as claimed in claim 83, wherein eachprotic acid is a hydrohalide acid.
 85. A method as claimed in claim 72,wherein the or each protic acid is an organic acid.
 86. A method asclaimed in claim 85, wherein the or each protic acid is selected frommethanesulfonic acid, 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid, ethansulfonic acid,naphthalenedisulfonic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid.
 87. A method asclaimed in claim 72, wherein the MT-containing compound is LMTM:


88. A method as claimed in claim 72, wherein the MT-containing compoundis selected from the list consisting of:


89. A method as claimed in claim 72, wherein the MT-containing compoundis administered once per day.